A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Laura Kelber]

And the censorship comes not from these vitriolic stone-throwers but from
the bottom-line capitalists who decide that publishing or producing work
from Rowling or anyone else hapless enough to be attacked is too
financially risky. Woody Allen's latest movie streams in assorted places in
Europe and Asia but no one dares show it in the democratic USA.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:46 AM Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
wrote:

> I am certainly not going to wade into the topic either...
>
> Am 17.07.2020 um 11:51 schrieb John Bailey:
> > I'm not attacking or defending Rowling, or wading into the topic she
> waded into.
> > But the angry tweets referred to in Thomas' article aren't censorship.
>
> I am not saying they are. They are misogynist insults, however, hate
> speech and cyber bullying. Of course, the tweets have been selected for
> maximum effect, but still.
>
> > That's what democratic 'open debate' looks like.
>
> No. This is hate speech, not debate. It should not be censored but it
> should certainly also not be treated as a legitimate contribution to
> reasonable debate.
>
> > If you say something
> > that some people find hateful, some of them might respond in ways that
> > you don't like.
>
> Yes.
>
> > If you're truly committed to open debate you'll engage
> > in dialogue with these foul dissenters.
>
> You believe a woman should engage in dialogue with people calling her a
> c*nt, inviting her to choke on their d*cks and publicly expressing their
> wish to slap her around, smack her up and punch her in the head? And if
> she doesn't, she is not committed to "open debate"? Sorry, but this is
> ridiculous.
>
> > Or you can just demonise them. That's a tactic.
>
> The people who wrote these tweets are not demons but idiots who are
> ideologically blindsided to a degree that makes me almost feel sorry for
> them.
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>