From: utzoo!decvax!duke!mcnc!ncsu!fostel Newsgroups: net.college Title: Article-I.D.: ncsu.1096 Posted: Sat Feb 19 10:13:18 1983 Received: Thu Feb 24 03:04:40 1983 Indeed, people like Kirkpatrick still exist, and people like the audience still exist. I guess it wasn't just one misguided generation in the late 60's. In a rational society, the police would have interrupted her speech as surely as they would a display of obscenity (no socially redeeming value) -- though since this was SanFran the point may be moot. Clearly therefore, the society is not rational, and condeming the protesters for not being civilized and polite (i.e. rational) is quite inappropriate. Cival disobedience has a long and stormy history; there have been a number of very cogent defences of it thru the years. Should the speech have been disrupted? I hope merely to persuade those who answer "NEVER!", to see that the proper answer must be couched in the reality of a POLITICAL, not rational society. For my own part I prefer to allow any obscenity in a volantary setting so I have no particular objection to Mz. Kirkpatricks particular public display in such a lecture. Were she advocating the torture and maining of 6 month old infants to a group of psychotics, I would have to conclude that it was no longer a volentary setting, as the psychotics might fail to request permission from a suitable (e.g. mine) child. You see, there is an extreme point which makes forcible interruption (cival disobedience) quite legitimate. DEBATERS BEWARE. We are on a slippery slope here. Pick your ground and defend it, but don't spout shallow ideas like never interrupting. YOU just don't happen to be deeply and morally offended by what Mz Kirkpatric is saying. Sadly there MAY be a lot of psychotics in positions of power in this and other countries, and they will be listenning to her. Freedom of speech is a fine principle, but the immorality of torture and death is much finer. I assume you agree. ----GaryFostel----