Re: VERY OT: On Censorship.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:24:49 -0600, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
>Hello,
> I want to clear up a bit of confusion about my statements.
>
The double >> stuff is mine--to properly attribute.
>> So you're going to dictate how tax money is spent, based on your
>> minuscule contribution to the whole? My tax dollar is in there, too.
>> You want to deny me the benefits of my contribution?
>
> No. Let me put it another way, perhaps, that would be better. If you want
>your library to carry Mein Kampf (which I now regret using as an example), I
>suppose I can't argue with that - however, you should donate the book, and
>not expect (potentially) my tax payment to buy the book for you.
> The library isn't obligated to provide everything for everyone. There is no
>"Right to Get Any Book I want at the Library" in the Bill of Rights.
The library serves as the repository of human knowledge. As such it has
an obligation to provide for the reading and study needs of its
constituents. It should provide as much as it can afford, without
heeding any calls from the champions of ignorance to ban certain books
or themes.
>
>> Actually, it probably does. It is likely in a restricted area, or on
>> fiche or disk. It, like Playboy, Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated
>> are major periodicals and any quality library will stock them.
>
> No, I'm pretty sure I can say it does not 'round here. I'm not sure about
>in your neck of the woods.
If that's the case, your library directors are not doing their jobs
properly.
>
>> What! Are you nuts? Of course bin Laden's writings, rants, and raves
>> should be readily available to anyone who wishes to suffer through the
>[...]
>> suffering. It would be well that we all read these works so that we can
>> recognize the next would be messiah.
>
> I don't believe in teaching by showing madmen's works. They are, often
>times convincing, and many a person could be lead into believing their
>thoughts - I don't want a bunch of bin Ladens being made even by a fraction
>with my money.
> Again, what everyone else wants is up to them. However, I'm not so sure the
>generally public would agree with you about making bin Laden's every whim
>available at the library. The modern idea that we are loosing free speech is
>absurd, if you look back to when the framers wrote the constitution, and the
>way the government ran for the next century or so after that, it is obvious
>that they didn't mean "anything goes."
>
> However, as I have said before, I'm not dictating what anyone reads
>privately. But, just like my city hall can't have a Nativity scene out front
>without fearing litigation (isn't that censoring?), I'm not so sure that my
>library should have radical Islamic documents.
No, it can't. That is quite proper as it is the exercise of religion by
the local government, which is strictly prohibited. Somehow I don't
think it bothers you that they also can't erect a shrine for Ramadan.
Or to Buddha. Or to Shiva. Or to any other religious icons. The
_exercise_ of _any_ religion by the state (i.e. any level of government)
is prohibited by our constitution. Perhaps you should read it.
As for Islamic texts in the library, that falls into the category of
information (You don't mind radical Christian polemics being in there,
do you? I didn't think so.) and do not represent the force of law.
>
> To sum things up - I do not believe in Talbanic (is that a word?)
>censorship. I believe that a library or other public or private institution
>has a right to censor what they have under their direct control (how about
>the kids that get in trouble at school for having shirts with Christian
>sayings on them?).
This is a case of what's good for the goose, etc. It was the Christian
radicals who insisted that so-called Satanic t-shirts be banned. Well,
Satanism is also a religion and if you ban one, you must ban all or it
is a government exercise of preferential religion. Read your
constitution.
>However, that does not mean I think there should be a
>government enforced censor. The point is, the First Amendment does not grant
>you the right to make others give you your brand of free speech, but does the
>exact opposite. To insure that no one can enforce their ideas of free speech
>on anyone else (i.e. making your bookstore only sell what they want it to).
>That, in the end, is the freest speech of all.
Huh? I don't think this can be parsed into intelligible form.
>
>> shoots I find. Censorship is _always_ the first step, whether by a
>> do-gooder or a schemer.
>
> True. And building a large military is often another early step. However,
>just like everyone who has built a military isn't destined to become a tyrant
>- neither is everyone who doesn't support " Laissez-Faire free speech" a
>tyrant. Make no mistake - I support free speech, even on many things I
>disagree with - I just don't feel free speech requires a library (or Debian,
>for that matter) to do something.
A specious argument. Those who would censor, are tyrants.
I make no mistake. You do not support free speech unless the speaker
agrees with you. You have made that clear again and again.
>
>
>> And you would deny anyone who's taste in books differs from your own
>> equal access.
>
> No. I'm denying their right to *expect* the government to buy the book for
>them, not their right to buy/borrow the book themselves.
Bullshit
>
>> and thus my ps. If you don't fall into the fundamentalist grouping with
>> the likes of Torquemada, Khomeini, the taliban, or Jerry Foulwell and
>> his clinic bombers, I apologize for the insinuation. It's just that so
>> many who want to control others 'for their own good' hide behind
>> religion by putting their religion well out in front.
>
> Well, I'm not trying to hide anything by using a religious front. I
>definately do not fall into the likes of people like Khomini and the taliban.
But you are in there with Torquemada and Fallwell and his clinic
bombers?
>I am repulsed by them, no matter how firmly I believe in Christianity, I do
>not feel the solution is ever to force someone to my view. Forcing someone to
Yet you would limit access to conflicting views in publicly supported
institutions.
>believe something is only saying you don't want to know what they really
>believe.
This will end my part in this discussion. I find your celebration of
ignorance appalling. I can only hope that your neck of the woods is a
long way from mine.
--
gt
Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash
Reply to: