Dear All of You,
I sometimes read this sentence, appended to your posts:
< "If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in
< favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.
< Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of speech."
<== Noam Chomsky ==>
In my humble view, a speech is nothing if it isn't communication.
So the above quote could be pragmatically rewritten as follows:
<< "If you're in favor of freedom of communication, that means
<< you're in favor of freedom of communication precisely for views
<< you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of freedom of
Still, this changed speech looks a bit misty. I realize I must specify
what the term "communication" means - always in my humble view.
I believe that communication only occours when a spoken speech
becomes a listened speech (i.e. when a written speech becomes a
read speech). Then, that communication may be really free, people
should be free both in speaking freely and in listening freely.
Well, the above sentence of Chomsky seems similarly to contain a
bit of hidden mist. He spoke about < freedom of speech >. But _of_
_what _speech_? In his view perhaps, were both the spoken speech
and the listened speech automatically the same?
If they weren't - as they aren't, at least in my possibly < despised >
view - then must you, who are in favor of freedom of speech, take
care of the freedom of your speaking only, or also of the freedom of
your neighbour in listening to you, i.e. of the latter's flexibility in
mind, so as to be really in favor of freedom of speech as well as in
favor of freedom of human communication??
I call all of you, who surely know Noam Chomsky much more than I
(who is a mere country physician) to put this topic into discussion,
whether it may be influential to the aims of human communication
or not - admitting only that it is one of the goals of this list.
You could be of great help, in accordance of course with the
Chomsky's advice: <. . in favor of freedom . . Otherwise . . >