Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Perhaps we understand the First Amedment to mean different things--although I won't take up LUG bandwidth with my--I think reasonably well informed--interpretation. Suffice it to say, the First Amendment does not protect a bigoted boor from the disapprobation of the community: it simply--in most circumstances--prevents the community from prosecuting or penalizing him for the expression of his views . Insofar as the LUG constitutes a voluntary association, it is perfectly acceptable for it to "police" the behavior of its membership, though the mark of a good NG is that it exercises that power sparingly. It's been awhile since I've reviewed charters, but nearly all preserve the authority of the list owner to 'twit' or otherwise expel participants who violate an NG's 'community standards' in matters of practice (posting attachments), spamming, profanity, and for various other violations of 'nettiquite.' This is hardly a First Amendment issue, though I suppose that it's conceivable that certain 14th Amendment protections may obtain in the matter of civil rights' violations. My sense is that the law remains pretty unformed on this point. Your assertion that PC has reduced the guarantees of free speech and free press to "RUBBLE" does not warrant a reponse. I recall reading once a statement of William Randolph Hearst's (I think) to the effect that the purpose of a "free press" is to buy newsprint a three cents a pound and to sell it at ten. I'd worry about *that* calculus . . . I dwell on this, because I believe that the tone of this NG is often intimidating to lurkers, and it's not always because the "experts" seem so magisterially knowledgable. I don't doubt that many of us have recd. private email from luggers who say as much. Chandos . "Political Correctness" has reduced the guarantees >of free speech and free press to RUBBLE. To express or print >views that are offensive is political/career suicide in the press >or in the university environment. >Yes, bigotry and ignorance and hatred is protected. I'm not promoting >any of these things. Let the poster state his views. Let the >"marketplace" decide. It will not decide for hatred. >C-U, >Walt > >On >Sat, >9 Jan 1999, Chandos Michael Brown wrote: > >> It's depressingly commonplace on this list to see any infringment of >> bigotry, ignorance, or any call to linguistic consideration immediately >> characterized as "politically correct." I just don't get it, and I wonder >> how many would-be contributors simply decline to join the conversation for >> this reason. Really, do we *want* to sound like those drunken louts at the >> end of the bar? >> >> CHandos >> >> >> >> > >> >BTW, is that dictionary new enough to have listings for "P.C. Police" >> >or "Net-Nanny"? My Texas edition (obtainable at any gun show) >> >doesn't. >> > >> >A lot depends on your viewpoint. :) :) :) >> > >> >CU, >> >Walt >> > >> >> >