| Volume 5, #20 | June 6, 2001 | POLITICS WITH BITE! | CONTACT | HELP | 
BACK ISSUES
|
|
Backtalk ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org. The Horowitz AdETS!I am surprised by the level of support ETS! would provide in publishing the notorious David Horowitz paid ad questioning the payment of reparations to African-Americans. (Although ETS! has not gone so far as to print the ad, yet.) There is no doubt that free speech is a right that must be fought for, but this does not mean that any form of mass media (that is committed to free speech) is, therefore, committed to publishing any materials presented to it. Furthermore, a commitment to free speech should in no way be circumvented in light of funds for publishing the material, the status of the author of the material, nor the subject matter of the material. I hope there is no point in debating this. (Judging by Geov Parrish's reply, however, I may be wrong. It is hard to believe that ETS! could be so easily bought.) So the question is: Is a refusal to print (or, more likely, to accept such material as an ad) David Horowitz's ad proof that "the brownshirts for Political Correctness wish to banish any form of speech that they disagree with?" (Backtalk, John Hall, ETS! Vol. 5 No. 18.) The answer is unequivocally, "No." Furthermore, let us not confuse the difference between an ad and a work of journalism or an editorial. An ad is not representative of free speech. It is a means, a device by which a commodity, in this case an idea, is sold. It is a commercial service. Anyone may find Horowitz's ad on the Internet and judge for herself or himself just how "important and obvious" his points are. Geov Parrish is right to note the absurdity of Horowitz's reasoning, which absurdity is apparently completely beyond John Hall. And if Mr. Hall finds that The Daily voices "strong political partiality," then I am dumbstruck as to why he is reading ETS!, the political alignment of which is strongly left. ETS!, take a stand and stay firm to your principles. Although I would agree that sometimes the end justifies the means, this is not one of those times. A possible gain in circulation may spell dire results in terms of appearance and trust. --Curtis Vaughan, Seattle TS Responds: It's unlikely that ETS! will ever be confronted with that particular bargain with the devil. I don't think David Horowitz will be looking to take out an ad in ETS! anytime soon. Would we really take his money? I don't know. But it doesn't seem to be an ethical dilemma so much as a practical one. For one thing, we'd want the money up front. The deadbeat Mr. Horowitz refused to pay the Daily Princetonian for running his ad. That college paper ran the anti-reparations ad, along with an editorial critiquing it. The hyper-sensitive Horowitz took offense at that and accused the paper of unfairly poking holes in his flimsy argument. While the Supreme Court has ruled that $$$ equals speech, they haven't entirely solved the problem of what do when that $$$ babbles incoherently. I looked up the ad on the Internet and evaluated it myself. The most shocking thing about it is how poorly it's argued. Putting the ad on display to the ETS! readership would hardly be doing Horowitz a favor. I wouldn't feel any obligation to run any ad as a free speech issue. Least of all one foisted by a privileged whiner like Horowitz. He didn't care about influencing people with his ad. He wanted to get it squelched so he could make national press about reverse-discrimination being applied to him and his ad. "I might fight against what you say but I'll fight for your right to say it," does not mean I have to help you say it. On the other hand, if you are your own worst argument, helping you say it, and say it more fully, might be in my own interest. As a general rule, I don't think ETS! wants to necessarily rule out printing anything before it comes to our mailbox. ACORN Some MoreDear ETS,Once again you have shown a great lack of investigative and reporting skills. The Seattle ACORN strikers got a victory at the NLRB hearing??? The latest deal also includes the workers returning to their jobs??? Are you on crack??? There was no hearing. After intensive infighting between the remaining three strikers, and many, many offers made (all of which were in no way connected to the one before), the ACORN lawyer said "tell them to go fuck themselves...let's rumble." And everyone was ready for the hearing to begin. Right before it began, their lawyer offered full back pay and two weeks severance pay. Done deal. So the strikers got their money, there was no hearing, they did not return to work, they did not want to return to work, and everyone went home. Of course since you appear to be getting your info from the Wobbly side--they won. With no mention of the fact that not only did the strikers not return to their jobs, they did not want to return to ACORN. NO ONE got a victory. The Movement became more divided, the Wobblies lost, nothing has changed for anyone at ACORN... GP's original editorial was wonderful. His following one was full of misinformation. And now Troy's... With much lost respect, Suki, via e-mail T.S. replies: I didn't actually use the word "hearing" anywhere in the article, because I wasn't referring to any hearing. The "victory," that I mentioned, was the dismissal, in April, of ACORN's complaint before the NLRB that charged the strike was illegal. That is what, in my view, opened up the door to the settlement. I didn't mention in the article that the workers had resigned, because the paper went to press before that happened. I wasn't surprised they resigned, nor do I think that development changes anything I wrote. I can believe that ACORN's lawyer huffed and puffed. I don't think I need, however, to take that as proof that the strikers' straw house got blown down. Lawyers bristle their fur and growl as part of their professional duties. It's supposed to be impressive. The two sides cut a deal and the workers went home. The movement can start picking up the pieces. Maybe this strike wasn't a good tactical or strategic idea in the first place. But folks do what they gotta do. I can agree the movement has been wounded, but that's not the strikers' doing. They were just a handful of people struggling in their own workplace. People don't walk off their jobs for trivial reasons or on the spur of the moment (in the heat of the moment perhaps, but it takes a while to build up that much steam). An organization like ACORN should pay attention to that, and be openly and actively talking about it, before it gets to a strike. The situation isn't going to go away no matter how many lawyers are hired or workers resign. 666xon might be able to muscle their way out of a labor dispute, but ACORN? The strike highlighted pre-existing divisions in the movement; they've just become more visible. Abetted by the divisive atmosphere, the siege of ACORN has ended in a stalemate. Now what? |
subscribe /
donate /
tiny print /
guidelines for writers /
help /
index
© 2001 Eat the State! All rights reserved.