Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Nilspeak on Television Censorship 
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 20:28:41 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

"Turning television off IS a form of censorship," states Ed Nilspeak
of Princeton University, "At the very least," he continues, "it
contradicts the professed dedication of viewers in the 'Hate Speech
Okay' thread like Mr. Starr to free and open debate." 

Nilspeak, during a quiet discussion on "UseNet," a medium perhaps best
known for its lack of discrimination in all matters Great and Small,
offered the following justification for his belief:

"First of all, a metaphorical reference to murder is made in the
description `turn OFF' the television, showing a suppressed rage and
desire to `off' one's opponent when one, like Starr, is bested in
argument.  This suppressed rage is confirmed by the intemperate
language used by discussants like Starr.  The very title of this
thread, `A Modest Request' is an (unconscious?) reference to Jonathan
Swift's `Modest Proposal' that the children of the 17th century Irish
poor be fed to the English.  Partially Irish, I assure Mr.  Starr that
he will have to catch me and (non-metaphorically) `off' me first."

"Discussants in the `hate tv' thread," prattled Nilspeak, "have
professed dedication to free and to open debate, even when people from
Viktora's victims to Kim Pring (harmed by Hustler) to Anita Hill
(decried as a lunatic for bringing needed information re a Supreme
Court nominee to the attention of the Senate Judiciary Committee) are
all harmed." When asked about the fact that Ms. Hill's allegations
before the Senate committee remain unproven, Nilspeak side-stepped the
issue and simply continued, reality not being one of his strong points: 
"Yet discussants including Starr themselves feel entitled to take 
refuge in `offing' the television, rather than participate in debate 
by viewing it in its entirety.  I suggest that no such refuge was open 
to Viktora's victims, Kim Pring, or Anita Hill." Nilspeak offered no comment
when asked whether or not Ms. Hill et al. had access to their television
set's on and off knob...

"Now, " he simply continued, "turning the television off is a form of
privatised censorship and does not use a government mechanism.
However, this is merely an example of the libertarian illusion that if
force (including the electronic, metaphorical use of force implicit in
turning your television off) is deregulated and privatised, it will
disappear, and the libertarian amnesia re the social contract that
gave government a monopoly (with restrictions) on force."

Nilspeak concluded his forceful argument with these prophetic words:

"Anyway, I hope to have shown that turning your t.v.  off is a form of
censorship that gives the lie to the professed dedication to `freedom'
that we so often see on boysnet."

Nilspeak, who gained widespread notoriety with his televised debate
("Resolved: Failing to Read Every Book in the World IS a Form of
Censorship") during the recent primaries in the United States, was
interviewed recently in his home, following a talk show appearance
where he promoted his new book (Unreading Playboy: Censorship in
Drag").  During the course of the interview, this reporter noted that
Nilspeak's television set was off.

Nilspeak, when pressed on the subject, finally admitted that he not
only turned his set off frequently, but that there were tens of
thousands of programs he not only had not seen, but had no intention
of seeing. He rejected our suggestion that this constituted
censorship in _his_ case, because he was an enlightened and
politically correct human being who already knew everything there was
to know. He insisted, when asked about "UseNet", that he read each and every
article posted there on a daily basis, and that "...anything less is pure
censorship!"

Which is probably why, we suggested, he hadn't read every book in the
world, either, but refused to concede that this constituted censorship
within his "Off the TV" doctrine.
-- 
"The mass killings by shooting proved cumbersome and expensive. Too many
people were needed to shoot 33,711 Jews on September 29 and 30, 1941, at
Babi Yar near Kiev. Eventually, close to 100,000 corpses filled that
ravine, mostly of Jews, but also of partisans and saboteurs." [Laska]
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc