Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
>I don't believe in suppressing any ideaology. If you believe that an idea
is wrong, there is nothing better than having it exposed to scrutiny. In an
equal contest, the truth has nothing to fear from a lie. When an idea is
suppressed, it then gains a sort of power, a cache if you will, just from
being surpressed. I believe in letting all points of view compete in the
great marketplace of ideas and I further believe that for people who are
capable of thinking critically, that ideas good and true will prevail.
I would like to see that neo-nazi drivel exposed for what it is,
mean-spirited venal tripe spewed by extremely insecure people with
hyper aggressive inferiority complexes, and it can't be exposed until it is
The real danger is that people believe that suppressing ideas that they
don't like is a good and reasonable thing to do. It is neither good nor
reasonable for these two reasons. Firstly, it is impossible to proscribe
an idea and the more you attempt to suppress it, the further underground
it goes, but it will live and spread, partially driven by the same force that
attempts to eliminate it. Secondly, it is precisely the unpopular idea that
needs to be protected. Popular ideas are validated by their popularity,
and need no protection, but the unpopular idea, which may or may not
have merit, needs to be examined as well and that examination can't be
made until it is expressed.
The danger from a falsehood or a lie freely expressed pales next to the
danger from the mechanism that can suppress unpopular ideas.
In short, I vote YES!<
end of msg
Special Collections - Marina