[Peace-discuss] Re: "Banning" and Power

[webmaster at one-world.org]

This conversation is interesting, but I want to inject a few salient  
points into the discussion.

The concept of "banning" speech is intricately bound up with the  
concept of power.  The ability to "ban" something presupposes power  
over the conduct to be banned.

Power is distributed among societies in different ways, and at  
different times in history.  In the old days, before mass media,  
public speech was exercised directly, by individuals, on the town  
square.  The interjection of print and other mass media has presented  
the problem of an intermediary into acts of free speech.  The power of  
this intermediary, whether it come from the filtering power of  
deciding which local person to publish in a newspaper, or which voice  
to privilege on television, remains with us today, and has been  
reduced into ever fewer intermediaries through the process of media  
consolidation.

Thus, the "banning" of which both parties speak is really a matter of  
power/control over the means of promulgating the speech act.  Under  
the US free market information system, the government acts as a final  
guarantor that at least SOME venue will exist for free speech.  In the  
case of a privately owned information distribution company, which  
treats information as a commodity, US law grants them the power to  
"ban" any information they want to.

Lou Dobbs, with all his racist rhetoric, can only be banned by the  
decision of private individuals.  Of course, the economic realities of  
American capitalism make it profitable to host the Lou Dobbs show.   
Likewise, commentary that undermines that "free media" idea can be  
shut down because power, in the form of the material ability to  
promulgate information, might decide that alternative viewpoints will  
eat into its profits.

Rather than wasting time and labor on arguing about what constitutes  
"banning," we should rather consider what public policy best deserves  
our attention.  I, for one, think health care reform is a good  
candidate, and be damned with concerns about what ideas get banned.   
There are lots of relatively open venues now to make your voice heard.  
  We can argue about how private bans affected that debate later.  For  
now, find the open venues and speak out.

John.



----- Message from jbw292002 at gmail.com ---------
     Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:21:42 -0500
     From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Reply-To: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous ('murder  
music' as hate speech)
       To: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>
       Cc: Ron Szoke <r-szoke at illinois.edu>,  
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>


> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:10 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:
>
>>  John,
>>
>> As for your example, you have  not  banned the right to unclean hands by
>> such action; what you have done is pressured the restaurant to ban that
>> right.   If the restaurant does require their employees to wash their hands,
>> then the restaurant is the one who has banned the right to unclean hands
>> while acting as their employee.  All you have done is demand or request that
>> they take such action; but it is up to them to decide if they will give in
>> to your demand or request.
>>
> I'm sure we understand each other, Laurie.  Even the restaurant, in response
> to public pressure, has banned the right to unclean hands ONLY AT THE PLACE
> OF EMPLOYMENT DURING WORKING HOURS.  Elsewhere, the employees can have hands
> that are as dirty as they can stand.  There is no blanket banishment of any
> kind whatsoever.
>
>
>
>>  *From:* peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:
>> peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *John W.
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2009 5:04 PM
>> *To:* C. G. Estabrook
>> *Cc:* Ron Szoke; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Stuart Levy
>> *Subject:* Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous ('murder
>> music' as hate speech)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> So those who contact the media outlets who broadcast Amy Goodman and demand
>> that she be taken off the air would NOT be advocating the banning of [her]
>> free speech?
>>
>> I think they would, and I'd object to it.
>>
>>
>> Oxford English Dictionary, Carl.  "Banning".
>>
>> If you own/run a restaurant, Carl, and I request that you require your
>> employees to wash their hands before preparing my food or else I will not be
>> able to patronize your restaurant in the future, have I "banned" the "right
>> to unclean hands"?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM, C. G. Estabrook   
>> <galliher at illinois.edu<mailto:
>> galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>    Jenifer--
>>
>>    You seem to suggest that you were not "advocating the 'banning of
>>    free speech.'"
>>
>>    On Wed Aug 12 you forwarded to the list
>>     >
>>     > ...It's time to get Lou Dobbs and his hate speech off the air.
>>     > ...CALL NOW AND DEMAND LOU DOBBS BE TAKEN OFF THE AIR
>>
>>    Why isn't that "advocating the banning of [Lou Dobbs'] free speech"?
>>
>>    Regards, CGE
>>
>>
>> Maybe you should look up "banning" in your Oxford English Dictionary, Carl.
>>
>> If Jenifer was suggesting (as she was NOT) that we call our state
>> legislators and ask them to make it a criminal offense for a radio or TV
>> station or web site to broadcast the words of Lou Dobbs, that would be
>> "advocating the banning of free speech".
>>
>> If, on the other hand, Jenifer was suggesting (as she was) that we contact
>> the media outlets who broadcast Lou Dobbs and make known our own private,
>> personal displeasure at the content of his speech and at anyone who would be
>> a party to such drivel, that is NOT "advocating the banning of free speech".
>>
>> What deep-seated psychological complex makes you feel, Carl, that you must
>> ALWAYS have the last word?
>>
>> John Wason
>>
>>
>>    Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>
>>
>>        Well said, Ron. Also a perfect example of the influence these
>>        shock jockeys have on folks, even those on this list.
>>        The MO is
>>        1) deliberately misinterpret what's been said
>>        2) lie about what's been said
>>        3) go on the attack
>>        4) repeat 1-3 ad infinitum
>>        Think: accusing me of advocating the "banning free speech"
>>        Think: Limbaugh, Sarah Palin et al on "death panels"
>>        Yeah, we're done here.
>>         --Jenifer
>>
>>
>


----- End message from jbw292002 at gmail.com -----