interesting-people message

Subject: IP: RE: interview censored by U.S. State Dept., published in the UK

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:09:32 -0400

Was not my word, but ...

From: "Tony Mayo" <tm@hiddenfootprints.com>
To: <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: RE: interview censored by U.S. State Dept., published in the UK
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:42:48 -0400

Please be more precise in the use of the incendiary word "censored." If the
US government had tried to stop the Washington Post from running the
interview we could be worried about losing our freedoms, but that is not
what happened. When the government uses threats of force to stop a private
entity from publishing something, that's censorship. When a government
agency declines to use its resources to promulgate something inconsistent
with its aims, that's judgment. Virtually nothing except child pornography
is censored in the US.

Best wishes,
Tony Mayo




For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/