|
The kiddie porn ban feels arbitrary. Unless it's a depiction of kiddie porn that actually happened (like photographic evidence), it gets to stay. On that note, all incriminating evidence would lead to its removal and the arrest of the offender. (Anything otherwise would imply a different kind of society and I think would fall outside of the scope of this scenario...) Did you think you would escape my knack for making pointless and overly anal observations? >
Anyway, I'm pretty much in agreement with wug on what would happen. I actually didn't thoroughly read what you wrote but mid-way through my paragraph, I scrolled up to yours real quick for some clarification, and realized I was pretty much writing the same thing. Great know-it-alls thinks alike?
Btw if anyone is curious, this was the article that sparked the conversation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...-of-minnesota/ I was wondering where you draw the line with religious intolerance when it comes to public property, particularly college campuses. I was just wondering aloud without actually knowing what rules are in place regarding to what extent you can blatantly disrespect a religion, especially on campus.
Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with people protesting against the image, but I do take issue with the administration trying to pressure the faculty into caving in, rather than encouraging healthy debate. It is is the college administration that makes policies, and according to this article:
In the end, the investigation concluded that the flier “does not rise to the level of discriminatory harassment that would violate University policy,” according to a March 27 report.
It was not in violation of their policies, and no one was legally required to take down anything.
So you say there are no policy managers, but clearly the administration does manage policy, and it isn't simply something that the offended party could change through vote. Public schools are beholden to the constitution.
Private and unsubsidized schools on the other hand aren't, and can theoretically grant even more free speech that public schools since they can protect beyond what the constitution requires them too. Of course, they can also be more restrictive and prohibitive than their public counterparts, which we already see happening. And if they're operating on cost-benefit analysis, like you say, wouldn't that just consistently give the vocal majority the power?
I'm interested in what forces are most instrumental in pushing private schools towards censorship and repression. And I would look it up but goddamnit, the birds are chirping and I have to wake up in 4 and a half hours. "Hear the birds? Sometimes I like to pretend that I’m deaf and I try to imagine what it’s like not to be able to hear them. It’s not that bad."
|