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

[John W.]

Very good points.  And very well expressed.  But who are you?  Are you my
more intelligent twin?

John


On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:53 AM, <webmaster at one-world.org> wrote:

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
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090818/e9a294b3/attachment.htm