From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:15:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.135329.10526@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>
>The market does not *invade* the sphere of ideas. As long as people
>choose for themselves what concepts are to become part of their
>thinking, the realm of ideas *is* a market, it is not "infected" or
>corrupted by a market.

A market is where I make contracts for mutual advantage; I do not make a
contract with the author of a book to believe his ideas.

>
>>The picture of the metaphor is of
>>a bazaar of equal small businessmen hawking their ideas
>
>Who besides you says that the said businessmen have to be equal, except
>under the law? Some business people are more sucessful than others.

This is the connotation of the market metaphor.  As such, it deludes
people without market power into believing that they have the market
power of a New York Times or a Knight-Ridder.

>
>>whereas the REAL
>>marketplace consists of giant media corporations mercilessly eliminating
>>competetition, not in the name of truth but in the name of a bottom
>>line.
>
>Back this up, please, and leave out examples of political pull
>accomplishing this.

In our society, poltical "pull" has an ECONOMIC foundation.  You are
deluded if you believe that there is something called the Eastern
Liberal Establishment that has, for some mystical reason right wingers
have never been able to explain, political "pull."  There is an Eastern
establishment, all right, but it's not liberal and it has an ECONOMIC
foundation based on the fact that it has made devils' bargains with the
Sunbelt (George Bush's 1946 hegira to Texas is an excellent
illustration of how the Eastern Establishment retained economic and
poltical power by appearing to become good ole boys.)

>
>
>Ideas are useful to honest people when they are true, and to dishonest
>people when they make convenient rationalizations. This is the way the
>*marketplace* of ideas works.

Thank you for explaining that to me.  It's the usual libertarian
shuffle.  Libertarianism purports to be a philosophy.  Upon inspection, it
is always found to deal in pre-philosophical distinctions which are
never unpacked and which have, in America, a racial and class-based
foundation.  I suggest that many of your ideas are convenient
rationalizations; prime among them is the comfortable view of a benign
market mechanism which (surprise) rewards white males.

>
>>I am of course aware that the American
>>electorate has been making decisions in the marketplace of ideas based
>>on its comfort for twelve years, with disastrous results.
>
>The marketplace of ideas is not the election. It is what ideas people
>take for themselves, not what they use to make 1/200,000,000 of a
>decision to select a president.

People in Eastern Europe have been willing to DIE for 125e-6 of the
chance to vote for the candidate of their choice, and democracy is more
than voting booths.  It's the entire collection of abilities to vote, to
pass local laws (including hate speech laws, under attack by the Supreme
Court), to persuade others to your view.  

>
>>But I would vastly increase subsidies for public
>>read/write access to media of all sorts, from the Internet to public
>>television.  This would do far more for the free exchange of ideas than
>>your fictional "marketplace."
>
>Then the authorities that run the subsidized net would define "free" as
>"responsible", then supress what they consider irresponsible, and run
>the net to suit Ed Nilges. ;-)

The lack of solidarity, the terminal uniqueness, of the repeated attacks
on me merely because of oddball views points up the decadence of a
technically-educated segment of the populace, the segment with netnews
access, more than anything else.  Has it ever occured to you that I
might be so ordinary as to have a lot in common with many of you, and as
such we might share certain ideas?

This process, especially marked on the net but in evidence ever since
the manufacture of Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut" and most recently
in evidence in the bashing of Hilary Clinton, is quite simply the
manufacture of the monstrum horrendum figure, the inhuman "gunman",
"liberal", "feminist" or "homosexual" to bear one's own sins.  

I remain convinced that the net needs moderated rather than unmoderated
groups and I would regard the position of moderator as more onerous than
anything else.  Peter Neumann does an excellent job of running
comp.risks without preferring one set of views over another and indeed
the unmoderated groups are the most inimical to that dialog that is a
necessary part of free speech, since the unmoderated groups devolve most
rapidly to flamefestivals.

Oh and Chuckie: I am of course aware that Socrates' "writings" were
recorded by others and then written down, but I am amused, for the most
part, by the hysterical reaction to the phrase "the writings of
Socrates."  I do not regard it as dishonorable to write and as such I am
not concerned with preserving Socrates' masculine honor in this peculiar
way.  As far as I am concerned, Socrates is part of the written
philosophical tradition whether he likes it or not.  The hysterical and
pants-soiling reaction to the phrase is in point of fact part of the
monster-manufacturing culture which fastens on fetishized details
including Hilary Clinton's law review articles and phrases like "the
writings of Socrates", in order to transfer your fears of family
breakdown (a result of capitalist economics more than anything else) and
of being an irrelevant academic dweeb to a "monstrum horrendum."  Do not
bother to reply to this paragraph; the issue of "the writings of
Socrates", shorthand in the same way as the phrase "the author of
Beowulf" or "the writings of Homer", is closed.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16463 alt.politics.correct:5140 alt.censorship:7157