🚀 go-pugleaf

Walter Gould wrote:
> 
> Chris Daley <cdaley@best.com> wrote:
> 
> >Ed Martini wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Myriam Diamond <diamond@cirque.geog.utoronto.ca>
> >> >      David A. Welch <welch@lake.wave.scar.utoronto.ca>
> >> >      Stanley Jeffers <fs300017@sol.yorku.ca>
> >>
> >> >[snip of an entire repost, which really wasn't necessary]
> >
> >I received the same post from a friend of mine a while back.
> >
> >Free speech is free speech.  Period.
> >
> >If we don't want them censoring our speech, we can't censor theirs, no
> >matter who they are.  That's the only way this will work.
> >
> >We may not always be happy with the results, but it sure beats the
> >alternatives!
> >
> >Chris Daley
> 
>         Because Chris is right, I will have to vote Yes.  I can
> neither stand their veiws or their music, they have the right to it,
> and it isn't up to me to censor them.


But they already have alt.music.white-power and alt.politics.white-power.
If rec.music.white-power fails to attract enough votes, that does not 
limit their freedom of speech. It just denies the air of respectability
that the 'rec.' prefix lends.

Gerry
gerrym@best.com