Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (53510)	8/30/1999 9:43:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Plus, there are respected journalists: APPETITE TO CENSOR IS GROWING ON THE LEFT by John Leo Left-wing censorship is not yet a major issue, but observe the tide rising: campus speech codes and conduct codes monitoring "verbal behavior," the theft and destruction of dissenting college newspapers, government attempts to ban Indian team nicknames, campaigns to cancel or shout down speakers opposed to affirmative action, the increasing use of harassment policies to silence opponents or get them fired. If you wonder where the slippery slope leads, take a look at Canada, which is a bit ahead of the United States in sensitivity censorship. In Ontario, it's an offense to say or write anything that might incite someone to violate any of 15 listed grounds of discrimination. And under Canadian human rights legislation, truth is not a defense. The Canadian Human Rights Commission called for a major review of Canada's human rights laws to see if "social condition" (poverty) should be listed nationally as a protected class. Advocates for the poor say the new listing would stop "poor-bashing" in the media, for example, comments by talk-radio hosts that some women get pregnant just to get on welfare. Student union leaders asked a university to bring a professor up on charges of violating the Manitoba Human Rights Code by distributing a flier listing "18 myths spread by gay and lesbian activists." In Saskatchewan, a dry-cleaner was fined $400 for saying to an Indian woman, "If you ask me, there shouldn't even be reserves" set aside for natives. Ted Byfield, editor of the conservative magazine Alberta Report, was charged with violating the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. His offense: publishing an article saying that although some native children were abused at residential schools for Indians, many others enjoyed the schools and were grateful for their education. Censors like to congratulate themselves on their dedication to free speech, so the Alberta law says, "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject." But last month the Calgary Regional Health Authority used the law to get a temporary injunction against publication of further stories by the Alberta Report on partial-birth abortions. Quoting unnamed nurses and hospital documents, the magazine stated that some of the babies in such operations at Foothills Hospital were born alive and deliberately allowed to starve to death. The same doublethink by censors who proudly announce their love of free expression is common in the United States, too. "I often have to struggle with right and wrong because I am a strong believer in free speech," said Ronni Sanlo, a gay activist at UCLA. "Opinions are protected under the First Amendment, but when negative opinions come out of a person's fist, mouth or pen to intentionally hurt others, that's when their opinions should no longer be protected." This is a common mind-set: "Good" speech is protected expression, but "bad" speech (my opponents') is a form of action that should be punished like criminal acts. The censors have evolved a whole new vocabulary to blur the line between acts and speech: "verbal conduct," "expressive behavior," "nontraditional violence" (criticism) and "anti-feminist intellectual harassment" (rolling one's eyeballs over feminist dogma). Gloria Allred, a well-known talk-show lawyer, recently made one of the broader censorship claims in a sexual harassment case. A student at the College of the Canyons in Los Angeles complained after her professor allowed a male student to talk graphically about sex during a class discussion. Allred argued that Title IX, which outlaws sex discrimination in higher education, covers discussions in class. In effect, this would mean that colleges are legally bound to censor their professors' lectures in order to protect vulnerable students. In their book "The Shadow University," Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate analyze the national spread of college censorship. Among the banned comments and actions are speech that causes loss of "self-esteem or a vague sense of danger" (Colby College), "intentionally producing psychological discomfort" (University of North Dakota), "insensitivity to the experiences of women" (University of Minnesota), "feelings" about gays that evolve into "attitudes" (West Virginia University), "inconsiderate jokes" (University of Connecticut), and the telling of stories "experienced by others as harassing" (Bowdoin). Serious nonverbal offenses include inappropriate laughter (Sarah Lawrence), "subtle discrimination" such as "eye contact or the lack of it" (Michigan State) and "licking lips or teeth; holding or eating food provocatively" (University of Maryland). Because federal courts have struck down speech codes, many of these restrictions have been recast in vague language and buried in student codes of conduct, as the columnist Nat Hentoff writes, "in the hope that judges won't find them." But the appetite to control and censor is greater than ever, a high priority for the cultural left. COPYRIGHT 1999 JOHN LEO uexpress.com