Re: surfing uncensored

Charles (quester@eskimo.com)
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:22:53 -0800 (PST)

Gee, I hate getting involved in a discussion in which the irritation level
has already risen too high, but I can't help feeling that a real issue of
substance has been raised, and one that I would much like to see
addressed. I hope people will accept that I, at least, am not trying to
twist words or prick pretenses or create any more negativity. I just want
to know how Sudbury -- or any school so conceived and so dedicated -- can
reconcile what appears to be an inescapable contradiction.

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 Msadofsky@aol.com wrote:

> Why, pray tell, are people so annoyed that no one at SVS bothered to answer
> the obvious answer -- we allow no illegal activities at school.
>
> X-rated movies would. They can't be shown at school. R-rated movies can.
>
> What I think of censorship doesn't matter here. The school has taken stand
> after stand for free speech, but not for ignoring laws.

Obvious or not, the answer raises the question: _WHO_ "allow no..."?

If the school community really runs the school, then in theory it could
vote to allow or encourage `illegal activities' that its members thought
should not be illegal. (There are laws even today, even in
Massachussetts, which a Thoreau might choose to disobey.) But if `we' can
draw a line at illegal behavior, then `we' clearly possess a veto.

But I thought the whole idea -- or at least a big part of it -- was that
`we' didn't.

Please believe me: this is not a frivolous or provocateurish question.
I realize that it probably cannot be answered in a final or definitive
way. But I would really like to know how it is being answered now.


- Charles -