Trying to push an anti-free-speech bill in Arizona:
The Arizona bill, if enacted, could take self-censorship in schools to a new level.
"This is yet another bill that is seeking to restrict the free exchange of ideas on campus, and, frankly, this is probably the most extreme form we've seen yet," Fitzgerald said. Unlike its cousins in other states, it lays out specific penalties when a teacher or professor advocates "one side of a social, political or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy."
And where MSM has to retain a dignified tone, the blogs can move in and trash the idiot with the full force of scorn Horowitz really deserves:
Nothing you say or write can be trusted or taken at face value--certainly not this newest tantrum. Your language play is too crude... you are like a con artist who has tried his tricks on the same people once too often.
Except that, as the article you link to points out, Horowitz opposes the bill in question because it places too many restrictions on college professors.
Just like Discovery Institute "opposes" bills that are too overtly religious....
Unlike its cousins in other states, it lays out specific penalties when a teacher or professor advocates "one side of a social, political or cultural issue that is a matter of partisan controversy."
Wow, so all you'd have to do is turn an issue into a "partisan controversy", and professors could no longer advocate a position on it?
Yup, and if you teach evolution, some Republican will claim it is a partisan issue because, remember, they "create their own reality"....
"Just like Discovery Institute "opposes" bills that are too overtly religious...."
And if you said they were "pushing" a bill that they "oppose" because it was too overtly religious, you'd still be wrong. I don't see how the fact that Horowitz is a menace to academic freedom in general changes that your post is factually inaccurate based on the very article you're linking to. The standard operating procedure for simple factual inaccuracies in a blog post is to fix them, not argue that it's ok to be wrong because your general point is valid.
No one likes admitting mistakes :(
How can anyone in his/her right mind say anything positive about Horowitz? That is the only person I ever called a nasty name on this blog and he fully deserves it - he is a monster.
This bill, like all the others, is the direct result of his activity. His Arizona pawns went overboard so he has to backpedal for the press. Just like DI.
Then the title and text should say something like "Horowitz imitators" or something.
Anyway, as Chomsky points out in _Necessary Illusions_, the strongest form of censorship isn't state censorship or other forms of censorhip from outside (like this bill) but self-censorship or censorhip from within -- things you're not allowed to say, or even think, if you want to belong to a certain group. So, there is no law that saws that newspapers can't write exposes on advertising practices -- they know who pays their bills, so the very idea is just taboo. Untouchable.
As I recall, in early 2005 we saw how much a bunch of academics embrace the free exchange of ideas when they wanted Larry Summers gone for proposing a scientific hypothesis. (I'm not talking about the ones who were disgruntled for reasons unrelated to the sex differences issue.) That's free speech for you: tell us what we want to hear, or get lost.
"scientific hypothesis? From friggin' Pinker?!
Pinker is right about some things, but Deacon's approach to language is much better. Of course, they both agree on Baldwinian evolution having a crucial role in language origins.