MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"David E. Haberstich" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:24:18 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
In a message dated 01-02-22 13:18:31 EST, Indigo Nights writes:

<< If public dollars can be used in support of
 (charitable) actions accomplished by religious
 organizations, than one should be able to use public
 dollars for controversial artworks. >>

As I previously indicated, I agree with the latter.  I'm still pondering the
former proposition, but don't think either logically follows the other.  From
what I've seen so far, I'm assuming you wouldn't be willing to reverse the
order and say that public funding of controversial art sets a precedent for
faith-based initiatives?  In either order, it's a logical fallacy.  A neither
justifies B, nor does B justify A.  The issues are very different.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you would inject the hot-button term "hate
speech" into the discussion, although I'm not sure what you mean in reference
to the examples I gave.  I cited an attempt to omit an offensive word (or
merely one of its meanings) from the dictionary as a ludicrous and flagrant
example of censorship.  Public censure for the inappropriate use of an
offensive word is hardly justification for banishing it from the dictionary,
which is tantamount to putting one's head in the sand (one of the great
services of a good descriptive dictionary is the opportunity to explain which
words are considered offensive).  My other example, of pictures which were
removed from a Library of Congress exhibit because they were considered
offensive by some members of a group, it seems to me, is directly comparable
to Giuliani's demand that certain pictures be removed from exhibition because
they offend HIS group.  Where is the hate speech?

Before you answer that, I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to consider taking
this discussion off-list because it threatens to become "messy" by veering
into digressions which are inappropriate to the list (I guess it already
has).  Unless, of course, there is a demand for a public continuation...

BTW, I had a feeling that Indigo was a Polish name... :-)  Oops, that isn't
hate speech, is it?

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2