From: word_chemist@hotmail.com   
      
   "Martha Bridegam"  wrote in message   
   news:P5VFf.1764$rL5.482@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...   
   > ROBBIE wrote:   
   > >  You would think 'A collaborative general-interest blog of history,   
   > > literature, culture, and stuff ' might mention the Danish cartoon furore   
   and   
   > > its implications...   
   > >   
   > > ROBBIE   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   >   
   > Thank you once again for mentioning our humble website.   
   >   
   > Robbie's comment suggests a hypothetical case that may help   
   > clarify the distinction between respect for free speech and   
   > the exercise of the editorial function:   
   >   
   > Suppose that a site such as Horizon were to post a copy of   
   > the disputed cartoon. Suppose that an offended religious   
   > cleric were then to demand space to post a response on the   
   > site. Suppose the editors were to refuse. Would they not be   
   > exercising their right of free speech by refusing to post   
   > this outside party's content?   
   >   
   > The point illustrated, in case not clear, is that the   
   > freedom of speech includes the freedom not to be compelled   
   > to speak.   
      
   Sorry to interrupt this fascinating symposium, but I said: '...might   
   *mention* the Danish cartoon furore'. I would have thought you, of all   
   people, would recognize Islam for what it is: the biggest Far Right   
   organisation in the world. Still, they're largely brown and benighted, so   
   you feel awkward and look for more familiar targets. It isn't surprising:   
   this is just another aspect of the orthodox Left's abdication of reason.   
      
   I see there *is* now a post about the cartoons on Shangri-La, but no   
   takers....   
      
   ROBBIE   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)