From: brendt@dip1 (Brendt Wohlberg)
Subject: Re: unity and other myths
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:04:16 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

lucio@phyrql.ALT.ZA (Lucio de Re) writes:
: brendt@dip1 (Brendt Wohlberg) writes:
: : lucio@phyrql.ALT.ZA (Lucio de Re) writes:
: : : 
: : : Quite honestly, if _my_ freedom of speech (or _yours_) has to be curbed so
: : : that our descendants can attain real democracy, so be it. 
: : 
: : And what, pray tell, is *real democracy* without freedom of speech? 
: 
: You should get some lessons in semantics. I specifically separate
: democracy _in_the_future_ (descendants, I believe, are future generations)
: from curbs to freedom of speech _now_.

Thanks for you helpful suggestion. The question, however, is why you want to 
postpone real democracy? Why not now?
 
: : : In fact I'll
: : : go so far as to help enforce these restrictions if I can be convinced
: : : of their (temporary) necessity. And don't bother to retort that once
: : : entrenched, curbs cannot be removed. The USSR and South Africa both are
: : : examples of toppled governments.
: : 
: : No doubt you think the seventy years or so of Soviet rule without freedom
: : of speech was a mere trifle, but people who suffered under the system, I'm 
: : sure, reserve the right to differ. I suggest you read Solzhenitsyn's 'The Gulag
: : Archipelago' for some stories of the abuses by the "democratic" Soviet
: : Government (where there were, of course,  excellent reasons for restricting
: : freedom of speech).
: 
: What are you getting at? 

My apologies, I thought it was obvious. You cite the USSR of an example of the
removal of curbs on free speech. I pointed out the abuses that occurred in
the seventy odd years until their removal. The point is that, while the curbs
may eventually be removed, what of the abuses that can occur until they are?  
The USSR is in fact a good counter-example to your argument.

:I have read, probably with more horror than you, the Gulag Archipelago.

Squabbling over who was more horrified is, at best, a little silly.

: No, I do not approve of curbs to freedom of speech
: as a _democratic_ principle, I believe that it may be necessary to restrict
: the activities of troublemakers to attain peace (which is not the same as
: democracy). 

You would therefore, for example, not have anything *in principle* against the
government's emergency regulations during the 1980s, other than the way in 
which they were abused?

I agree fully that it may be necessary to restrict the activities of 
troublemakers, but I don't see why this should entail compromising freedom
of speech. Inciting others to violence is *not* protected free speech in any
country.

: Unfortunately, I remember that in 1976 many troublemakers,
: whose view I happened to share, got restricted by our present government,
: for peace purposes, so I have a problem with the "quis custodet custodes"
: that goes with it.

Then how can you think of supporting such an idea as curbing freedom of 
speech? 

: : 
: : I'm not quite sure how you see South Africa as an example of a toppled 
: : government. Considering the trouble the ANC has had with banning orders and
: : other restrictions of free speech, one would hope that they are fully aware
: : of the dangers of such restrictions. 
: 
: I don't think you make much sense. Let's see, were you upset at my posting,
: that you replied with non sequiturs?

There was no implied logical connection between the two sentences - sorry if
I confused you.
 
: The South African government (this one) has conceded innumerable changes
: to its original policies, no fewer than Gorbachev in the USSR. The
: communist party no longer rules in the CIS, hence my statement. Do I
: need to explain further?

There's a difference between reform and the toppling of a goverment. While
Gorbachev was in power he carried out a program of reform, but there's a 
new government now. The South African government has indeed conducted a 
program of reform, but it has yet to be replaced. 
 
: I agree with you that the ANC ought to be aware of the dangers of
: curbing freedom of speech, but do you think that if a law was passed
: to fine the use of the word FUCK in public, it would impinge on _real_
: _democracy_?

The old pornography/obscenity vs. free speech debate. 

What sort of restrictions are you advocating? At first you supported 
curbing freedom of speech, but now it appears you're just supporting the
accepted limits such as in slander/libel/obscenity/incitement to violence -
hardly very controversial or interesting.

: : 
: : --

[.sig deleted due to current economic climate]
 
: Have ever considered putting forwarding instructions in your mail spool
: files, so that (a) your signature doesn't waste bandwidth, 

I think INTERNET will survive the occasional extra 100 characters.

and (b) you
: don't have to read your mail in three distinct places?

Thanks for your concern, but I already have the forwarding set up, thank you.
Since you seem interested: I've had problems before with mail to one or two
of my addresses bouncing, thus the full list.

: You don't really expect people to send you three letters every time, do
: you?

No I don't - so far everyone who has sent me mail has had the sense to pick
*one* of the addresses. 

Do you also get confused when confronted with .sigs with two alternative e-mail
addresses (quite common, I might add), or do you just find three to be a 
vulgar display of opulence?

--
______________________________________
Brendt Wohlberg                       |
Electronic Engineering Department     |
University of Cape Town               |
e-mail: brendt@dip1.ee.uct.ac.za      |
        whlbre01@uctvax.uct.ac.za     |
        bwohlberg@eleceng.uct.ac.za   |
______________________________________|

Newsgroups: soc.culture.african