[lg policy] RE: Policy on messages

[Rosemary Salomone]

The present policy is unquestionably the way to proceed. The challenge from those with opposing views is not only healthy but necessary in a liberal democracy. It forces us to more thoughtfully assess and defend our own position. 

Rosemary Salomone
Kenneth Wang Professor of Law
St. John's University
School of Law
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, N.Y. 11439
(718) 990-6622 (ph)
(718) 990-1855 (fax)
salomonr at stjohns.edu
Webpage: http://stjohns.edu/academics/graduate/law/faculty/profiles/Salomone




-----Original Message-----
From:	lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu on behalf of Christopher Kennedy
Sent:	Mon 5/17/2010 10:21 AM
To:	Language Policy List
Cc:	
Subject:	[lg policy] RE: Policy on messages

Present policy is fine Hal and you have my full support-
any form of censorship however well intentioned wouldn't work
Best
Chris


Professor Chris Kennedy
Director
Centre for English Language Studies
University of Birmingham



________________________________________
From: lgpolicy-list-bounces+c.j.kennedy=bham.ac.uk at groups.sas.upenn.edu [lgpolicy-list-bounces+c.j.kennedy=bham.ac.uk at groups.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Harold Schiffman [haroldfs at gmail.com]
Sent: 17 May 2010 15:07
To: Language Policy List
Subject: Re: [lg policy] The Colonisation of Britain Continues: 16% of Primary  School Children Do not Speak English as Their Home Language

Dear Davyth and others,

Here we go again.  I tend to forward messages on the topic of language
policy (which often
includes immigration policy) even if they originate with groups that
most of us would
disagree with.  I publish a disclaimer at the end of every message,
assuming that folks
can figure out what the message is all about, and that it is not the
opinion of myself, or
of others on this list.  I assume (as do many others) that we need to
know what such
groups are saying, even if we don't agree with them.  I've gotten flak
recently for sending
some unpleasant messages, but most members seem to support the idea that we need
to know who our 'enemies' are, and what they are saying.  If however
it is the overwhelming opinion
of members of this group that we should NOT distribute such messages,
I will change my
strategy, but I predict that we would then become a 'nicey-nicey'
listserv that favors one
point of view, and I already see too much of that in various places.
(I lived through the loyalty-oath
controversies of the 1950's and 60's and would not like to see such a
policy take over on this
listserv.)

Alternatively, should I "bracket" such unpleasant messages with
"danger signals" so as to
make it clear that it is unpalatable and disgusting, and might offend
some of our readers?
I could do that, but I think I would soon be more likely to turn this
listserv over to someone
else to manage.

Sincerely,

Hal Schiffman


On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Davyth Hicks <davyth.hicks at eurolang.net> wrote:
> Hi Harold,
>
> Are you sure that you should send out this 'report' from the far right
> British National Party and republished on this NPI site?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Davyth Hicks
> Eurolang
>
>
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list


 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list