[PEN-L:2417] Re: pen-l and censorship

["A. S. Fatemi" <fatemi@xxxxxx>]

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:

> Here are my thoughts on censorship:
>
> I do not believe that free speech should be censored when that speech occurs
> in the public domain, such as publishing in books or broadcasting.  I do not
> regard pen-l as the public domain.  Instead, pen-l is a space created for
> people to meet together to learn about how to promote progressive causes.
>
> We may disagree about what progressive means, but I think that most of us
> can accept that even those with whom we may disagree have progressive
> intentions.
>
> >From time to time people do come onto the list trying to stir up debates that
> are not within the scope of this list.  I regard this behavior as an
> intrustions.  I know that many people who share our interests are forced to
> leave the list because of the volume of the mail.
>
> I have read Hayek.  I even once taught a course on him.  But to begin a
> debate on Hayek would dilute the value of the list to most of us, especially
> because there are so many alternative sites where you can carry on such
> a dialogue responsibly.
>
> The point Jim Devine was making, I believe, was that we have very few places
> where we can carry on a progressive dialogue.  I do not think that it is a
> violation of free speech to ask someone to bug off if they intrude on a
> personal family conversation.  While pen-l is more public than a personal
> family conversation, it does have a definite [but not well defined] scope and
> purpose.  I do not think that it is wrong to ask people to respect it.
>
>  --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 916-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Dear Michael,

First allow me to thank you personally for making me aware of pen-l and
adding me to the list. I find your reasoning on this issue to be both
logical and tolerant. I certainly shall continue to respect the house
rules and will not abuse the hospitality. However, I would be less than
honest if I did not register my slight this agreement with the attitude
of those who have spoken on this issue so far. I assure you I have no
intention of prolonging this debate or any interest in adding to the
heavy volume of very interesting issues that are being discussed. The
question that I have on my mind is the following. Since so many important
world issues are being discussed on this list, wouldn't it be more useful
and rational to sometimes allow different perspectives which are not
fundamentally the same as the majority of those on the list? Of course it
is always more comfortable and reassuring to hear from those who agree
with us, but is that consistent with intelectual honesty?

May be you are right and this is a party for the like-minded people. In
that case, I am very happy that you have allowed on-lookers like me to
benefit from the wealth of knowledge and the stimulating rigor which
embody most of the material on pen-l.

I shall respect the house rules and continue my daily readings of all the
postings that I turn to with great pleasure and high expectation.

Respectfully yours,-


A. S. Fatemi
Professor and Chairman
Department of Economics
The American University of Paris
31 ave Bosquet
75007 Paris

Tel:	(33) 1 40 62 06 40
Fax:	(33) 1 47 05 33 49