I agree with most of the nonviolent suggestions on this problem.
Freedom of speech is a sacred part of our democracy. However, there
is a very simple solution to this kind of bigotry. The news
organizations that cover these bigots have the right to not put in
their broadcasts. No publicity is the worst enemy of these people!
Len
In article
<1b757263-58a0-4b3b-a1ed-21b638254e42@j13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> The news organizations that cover these bigots have the right to not put
> in their broadcasts. No publicity is the worst enemy of these people!
I think that is probably the best solution I've seen so far!
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
On Dec 14, 6:52=A0pm, "chaniarts" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stuart wrote:
> > In article
> > <1b757263-58a0-4b3b-a1ed-21b638254...@j13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > =A0 [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The news organizations that cover these bigots have the right to not
> >> put in their broadcasts. No publicity is the worst enemy of these
> >> people!
>
> > I think that is probably the best solution I've seen so far!
>
> huh? publicity, bad or good but mostly bad, is what keeps news organizati=
ons
> in business. why would they NOT want to publicize controversy?
AKA "there's no money in peace."
Stuart wrote:
> In article
> <1b757263-58a0-4b3b-a1ed-21b638254e42@j13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The news organizations that cover these bigots have the right to not
>> put in their broadcasts. No publicity is the worst enemy of these
>> people!
>
> I think that is probably the best solution I've seen so far!
huh? publicity, bad or good but mostly bad, is what keeps news organizations
in business. why would they NOT want to publicize controversy?