🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Btuzx1.KGx@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> hekunze@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Herb Kunze) writes:
>In article <Btuux0.HH4@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>> Mr. Irving is free to speak elsewhere, and does.
>
>  But I get the feeling that this non-academic non-historian would not be 
>  able to speak anywhere if Jeff Shallit had his way.  

Why the innuendo, Mr. Kunze?  Those who know me know that I am an
active supporter of freedom of speech.  (I'm a member of the ACLU,
for one.)  Freedom of speech means having to put up with opinions
that disgust you, even Mr. Irving's.  Freedom of speech does
*not* necessarily mean that the Carleton University history department
is compelled to provide a forum for Irving's opinions.  Nor does it
mean that *I* cannot protest when others provide such a forum.

When the Nazis marched in Skokie, I was sickened.  But I recognize
that they have that right.  Don't you see the difference between
a *public* parade (a forum which traditionally has been open to everyone,
from the KKK to the Communist Party), and an academic forum such as
a university colloquium (in which invitations have traditionally
been issued on the basis of one's work and reputation)?  They are
very different.

>  It's not really the nature of mathematical work to have controversial
>  cranks.  Of course, one might argue that quantum mechanics folks are
>  on the fringe.  ;-)  

On the contrary, I can name at least two people who occasionally speak
at mathematics meetings, but are well-known to be "controversial cranks".
One is C. Muses, of the "Mathematics & Morphology Center".

Jeff Shallit