protecting the weak

["michael perelman" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Should we rise to defend the innocence of poor Milton Friedman who has
suffered so much at the hands of the left for his ceaseless defense of
freedom?
----------
> From: Dan Hammond <hammond@xxxxxxx>
> To: hes@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: HES: QUERY -- Censorship of economic writers
> Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 7:45 AM
>
> ======================== HES POSTING ==================
>
> Jim Craven's baseless and vulgar charge against Milton Friedman brings to
> mind that Friedman's advocacy of freedom, noninflationary monetary
policy,
> and limited government has indeed been associated with efforts to censor.
> But Friedman was never the censor; he was the one censored.
>
> Before Chile, in 1974, members of the Students for a Democratic Society
> tried to shout Friedman down as he gave a talk at the Oriental Institute
in
> Chicago. After Anthony Lewis's _New York Times_ article (October 2, 1975)
> accusing him of contributing to repression of Chile's poor, a "Committee
> Against Friedman/Harberger Collaboration With the Chilean Junta" was
formed
> at Chicago. The group's posters on the University of Chicago campus
called
> for members of the community to "drive Friedman off campus through
protest
> and exposure."
>
> After the announcement of Friedman's Nobel Prize there were protests, and
> the Friedmans were given special protection during their stay in
Stockholm
> for the ceremonies. Other efforts by demonstrators to silence him
followed
> after the Friedmans returned to the U.S.
>
> If censorship is measured by the effort made to silence a person, which
> economists have been subject to more censorship than Milton Friedman?
>
> Dan Hammond
> Department of Economics
> Wake Forest University
>
> ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
> For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@xxxxxx

------
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
916-898-5321
916-898-5901 fax