Mr. Jimmy's editorial raises questions
by Fly Girl
I thought this was an excellent discussion starter, so I am quoting James's
entire editorial for 8/9/99. Signed, FlyGirl.
------------- Topic for Chat tonight: Tuesday night Mr. Jimmy got upset and posted an
editorial. In true Mr. Jimmy fashion the editorial pushed the boundries of
free speech, with the following sentence: " . . if you see him on the street approach him in a threatening manner and
verbally assault him, causing his heart muscles to spasm and go tachycardia,
leading to ichemia and eventual seizure of his heart organ." Granted, wishing someone dead is only as valuable as a "wish" is to an
individual. Granted, it was harsh and more than one person was upset and
shocked over the appearance of this editorial. The editorial was posted
below at about 9 pm Tuesday night and the seemingly violent part was removed
approx. 5 hours later. The entire editorial was removed at 9 am the
following morning. I have been known to express myself in this manner before - it's pure
temperament, rage in the form of words. Granted, a far safer level of
expression than physical violence. Questions: Is the internet for civil and well-mannered speech only? Am I
inspiring voodoo manifestations with this kind of writing? Shall we not use
our tablets on the Internet to push the boundries of free speech? Does this
kind of expressed emotion turn you off - as an RFM listener/member? Could
the Internet be playing a role in our current reduction of crime (in
general) in the United States by allowing those capable of violence to
express themselves?
| 
