hiperCorreio   

Debate Autonomia

     
[Anterior] [Próxima] [Responder] [Sem Formatação] [Outros Debates] [Ver Listagem]
Re:The Noam Chomsky's mistiness
Remetente: Elin  Whitney-Smith  <elin@tmn.com>
Data  de  Envio: 1996-07-11  17:19:36.000
I would agree that speech is only communication when it is heard. (The
listener controls the conversation just as the receiver controls the message
in information theory) 

I would suggest that the protection should be taken in its broadest possible
form.

Therefore I would argue against your rephrasing of the protection of freedom
of speech to freedom of communication.  It is more restrictive and would
permit an arguement like, "No one is listening so we don't have to protect
this speech." or "No one wants to hear from .... "

elin
Elin Whitney-Smith
elin@tmn.com
http://www.well.com/user/elin



At 11:13 PM 7/10/96 +0200, Antonio Rossin wrote:
>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 
><< communication.">
>
>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 . . >
>
>Thanks
>
>Antonio
>
>http://www.vol.it/Rossin
>
>
>




[Anterior] [Próxima] [Responder] [Início da Mensagem]