Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 23:58:31
From: Antonio Rossin
Subject: Re: freedom of speech, ignorance...hunh?
>> More particularly, america, tell me about freedom of speech?
>> Yes I am curious about what you call freedom of speech?
And Aaron replied:
> uh...it's nice when you can get it? uh...it's difficult to > secure...uh... > > I think I'd better get back to lurking as I think I have no idea what > is going on.... ><LURK ON/>And now Antonio is repeating a post on this topic, which he had sent a 3 or 4 months ago to the CM list to explain this matter, but having succeeded only in making some people become nervy.
(Perhaps souls are more peaceful now, and my stuff could result a bit more agreeable/understandable.. #;-))
@@@@@@@ Repeated post starts here @@@@@@@@@@@@
The Noam Chomsky's mistiness
Dear All of You,
I sometimes read this sentence, appended to your posts:
========================================================== < "If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in < favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. < Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech." <== Noam Chomsky ==> ==========================================================In my humble view, a speech is nothing if it isn't communication. So the above quote could be pragmatically rewritten as follows:
<< "If you're in favor of freedom of communication, that means << you're in favor of freedom of communication precisely for views << you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of << communication."Still, this changed speech looks a bit misty. I realize I must specify what the term "communication" means - always in my humble view.
I believe that communication only occours when a spoken speech becomes a listened speech (i.e. when a written speech becomes a read speech). Then, that communication may be really free, people should be free both in speaking freely and in listening freely.
Well, the above sentence of Chomsky seems similarly to contain a bit of hidden mist. He spoke about < freedom of speech >. But of what speech? In his view perhaps, were both the spoken speech and the listened speech automatically the same?
If they weren't - as they aren't, at least in my
view - then must you, who are in favor of freedom of speech, take care of the freedom of your speaking only, or also of the freedom of your neighbour in listening to you, i.e. of the latter's flexibility in mind, so as to be really in favor of freedom of speech as well as in favor of freedom of human communication??
I call all of you, who surely know Noam Chomsky much more than I (who is a mere country physician) to put this topic into discussion, whether it may be influential to the aims of human communication or not -- admitting only that it is one of the goals of this list. You could be of great help, in accordance of course with the Chomsky's advice: <... in favor of freedom ... Otherwise... >
Comments? Contributions? Might these links more appropriately point somewhere else? Write to Serchan.