[Peace-discuss] Hate speech

[C. G. Estabrook]

"Causing more harm than good" is a bit vague, Bob (as well as
being the standard invoked whenever a government wants to
censor the press).  How about an example?

You recently brought up a practical example from AWARE's past: 
Would it cause more harm that good to publish the fact that
Illinois' junior senator, despite being both liberal and
black, supports the continuation of the war?  Some people
felt that it was wrong for AWARE to do that.  --CGE


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:03:56 -0600
>From: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hate speech  
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>The First Amendment protects the press from the government. The
>press itself can do as it likes with regard to moral issues. We
>all know that a free press means that there must be a lot of
>junk in circulation, as well as a lot of good stuff. This may
>be necessary, but it is not an excuse for causing harm.
>
>The Public i holds itself to a very different standard than the
>DI. If we feel that publishing something would cause more harm
>than good, we don't do it. This is both our right and our duty if
>we wish to consider ourselves evenly slightly moral.
>
>Bob
>