On 5/7/2010 8:04 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>>
>> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
>> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>>
>
> OK then.
> My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".
>
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
>
> BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses
> of parliament.
>
Its used at some colleges to supposedly, "Allow group of assholes X to 
freely express themselves 'safely'.", when in fact having no function 
other than to prevent anyone presenting apposing views at the venue. The 
theory being that if you, I don't know.. think Obama is a Nazi and hate 
fags, you can spew gibberish, lies and paranoia today, at your 
"sanctioned" zone, but the people presenting the opposite view (or just 
a more sane one) have to do it at the other end of campus, can't *cross 
the line* and argue with the wackos, and/or have to host their, "No he 
isn't, and there is nothing wrong with being gay.", presentation on some 
other day.

Instead of an open exchange of ideas, you get the equivalent of lunatics 
on soup boxes, being guarded by campus police, to *allow them* to say 
any damn thing they like, and actually pointing out they are wrong, 
correcting their facts, or worse, merely holding a different opinion, 
can get you arrested and/or thrown off the campus. In other words, a 
"free speech zone" is a public echo chamber, where the only people 
allowed to participate are those willing to accept, or already 
believing, the premises presented. Facts, other ideas, or even 
discussion of specifics, if it seems like the later might derail their 
"speech", is not allowed *ever*.

Its not just hypocritical, its poisonous to community cohesion, the 
ability of anyone to find compromises, or anyone to get *any* point 
across, to anyone not already predisposed to believe it, whether its a 
factual and logical position or complete insanity. You might as well 
pick three random sites, say.. conservapedia, wikipedia, and what ever 
the "super liberal, altie med, everything that isn't new age is wrong", 
version of those are, then claim that the first and last one's choices 
to delete anything *not insane*, makes them "free speech zones", and not 
signs of mental illness. How do you expect to make policy, reach 
conclusions, or actually have an exchange of ideas, when only one side 
is *allowed* to say anything? And, the usual gibberish reason for it is 
something like, "The hate mongering, neo-nazis, are either a) afraid 
they will be physically attacked (unlikely), or b) *did* physically 
attack some other group last week (very likely), so its 'safer' to 
create a 'zone' in which either the perpetrator, or the victims (which 
ever one you imagine them to be), can say what they want, without threat 
of violence." The idea that preventing the violence, while *still* 
allowing alternate views to be expressed, seems to go way over some 
people's heads...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message