From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: "Multiculturalism and the First Amendment"
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:27:23 GMT
Followup-To: uiuc.civil-liberty

As quoted from <1992Sep28.151440.25798@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):

> Repressive tolerance is not the decision by a ruling class to only allow
> "good" points of view, whether those "good" views are left or right.
> It's a structural phenomenon in which late capitalist society simply
> gets out of the business of "censorship" because the structures of daily
> life do a far more efficient job of controlling behavior than the
> censors ever could.  

"Repressive tolerance" is a strawman created by those who wish to arrogate to
themselves the absolute right to censor anything which does not meet with their
subjective approval.  There are no quantifiable criteria for what may or may
not be censored.  The ONLY criteria is that the censors not "like" the 
material.

> Example: in the 1950s, there was a lot of overt censorship.  Remnants of
> prewar Hays office censorship in Hollywood saw to it that explicit sex
> and violence was only hinted at, and Catholics were required to avoid
> "condemned" movies (as defined by the Legion of Decency) and books on
> the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.  Yet at the same time there was much
> more diversity of political discussion.  Liberal democrats, Socialists
> like Norman Thomas, and Communists were on the ballot, along with
> extreme right wingers.              

The fact that somebody would laud the Index and the Hays office is perfect
evidence of their hatred for freedom of expression and congress.  Presumeably,
Nihilges agrees with the Church's ban on voting in Italian elections.

> Now we can see anything (although on the job and, if we are sexually
> subordinate women, in the home, we can't say everything.)  At the same
> time, political life is incredibly narrow.  Both Clinton and Bush
> support the death penalty, for example.  

And Brown did not.  Lenora Fulani (to my knowledge) did not.  Apparently, you
favor legislation to require people with whom you agree, to be elected to 
whatever offices you want.

> Marcuse would not analyze a simpleminded causal relationship and he
> would NOT advocate bringing back censorship in hopes of improving
> political dialogue (although it can be cogently argued that energy spent
> masturbating to Madonna, mentally or physically, is energy lost from
> political action.)  He'd say, instead, that the two phenomenon are

No, but YOU would.

> structurally linked such that you can't have one without the other.
> He'd say that repressive tolerance gives you freedoms that appear to be
> additive (more freedom for men implies in this view more freedom for
> women; how this is so is not explained) but which may REDUCE overall
> freedom.

Nobody but you has ever advanced such a theory here.  Freedom is freedom.
The freedom to not meet with your approval reduces NO freedom.  It veritably
EXALTS the freedom of all.

> Look at the Simpsons, a popular cartoon show known for its frank talk;
> "eat my shorts, man" describes pedophilia and perversion.  Matt

One must ordinarily read anonymous White supremacist fliers left at shopping
malls in order to find analysis of this quality.

> The tolerance becomes repressive under the actual conditions of
> production.  And I am not speaking as an academic trying to use the
> "correct" Marxist/feminist code.  I am speaking as one with twenty years
> in business, who sees the structures operate in conference rooms every
> day!

You could HARDLY speak as an academic.  You instead speak as an idealogue,
a pedant, and an implacable enemy of freedom of conscience and speech.

> You made an error.  But Hentoff has been in political dialog for years
> and he knows damn well that "repressive tolerance" is exactly what HE is
> advocating.  Hentoff therefore lies: about his committment to
> reproductive choice, about the St Paul law, and about repressive
> tolerance.  Please don't listen to him (or better, do, and then make
> sure to question him.)

The only lies are yours, but they serve a purpose.  You attack all freedom of
speech and conscience at every opportunity.  These lies are merely a means to
that end.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,misc.legal,alt.politics.correct,soc.culture.jewish