What's wrong/right with free speech

[Andrew Dinn]

Henry M writes:

> Is it too much to ask that such people refrain from such 
> unbelieveably juvenile and unpleasant language. I have received even 
> worse mail sent directly to me. Especially ironic from someone asking 
> others to refrain from messages that are "not relevant."

> I'd filter certain individuals, as can anyone else, but I still have 
> hope that reasonable discourse will prevail

Oh boy! Well, as a founder member of the raving asshole subsection and
a standing member (aka prick) on the all asshole charter committee I
have a brace of cents to donate.

I don't see any need to filter anyone right now. I don't mind
`unbelieveably juvenile and unpleasant language', actually I usually
quite like it - hell, if I did mind then I sure picked the wrong book
in `Gravity's Rainbow'. I don't even mind people writing about
everything under the sun - Pynchon gets away with it so why shouldn't
we.

I do mind people who ought to know better wasting the time of everyone
on the list with irrelevant crap (guilty as sin myself, I know,
although still not in the Koopman league). But the real problem is
identifying what is or is not crap. I'm happy to grant everyone the
leeway that I would prefer to be granted when I post. I'm also happy
if someone tells me I'm posting crap. I may even shut up as a
result. But in the end it's up to me to decide what to post and
whether it is appropriate. That may mean things get a bit out of hand,
as recently, for which we all have to apologize and grow up a bit. But
I would rather have censorship by self-control than have someone
dictate what can and cannot be said.

Now, about that GRGR . . .


Andrew Dinn
-----------
And though Earthliness forget you,
To the stilled Earth say:  I flow.
To the rushing water speak:  I am.