🚀 go-pugleaf

boba@newshost.pictel.com (Bob Alexander) writes:
>
>Here's another scenario: let's say there's a neo-Nazi speaking at the
>local Elks Lodge (no, I'm not suggesting the Elks would invite him).
>People decide to protest outside, saying that Nazi ideas lead to 
>oppression and murder.  They further suggest that anyone endorsing
>Nazism should be shunned.  Is there anything wrong with this?  I
>don't think so.

Nothing at all is wrong with this -- until the anti-Nazis start phone
harrassing the leader of the Elks lodge in an attempt to coerce him to
not let the Nazi have the lodge even before he was given a chance to speak.

This is when discussion dies and censorship of a type begins.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying the Elks would be required to rent their lodge
to every kook who wants to speak.  What I am saying is that once a public
speaking enguagement has been scheduled and then there's an active attempt
to thwart that enguagement, you're seeing a form of censorship.

>Free speech isn't just about allowing offensive people to speak.  It also
>permits peaceful rebuttals to the statements that an offensive person
>makes.

Bingo!  If communication is allowed, everyone wins.  Then the uninvolved can
make their OWN decision.  Marketplace of Ideas.  Free Speech.  Motherhood.
Apple Pie.  "Oh, say can you see....."   (you get the idea.)

If people are silenced, one group wins and another loses.  (you draw your
own conclusion.)

  - John "ACLU" Cooley