Freedom of speech

Here's an 8-page newsletter I like: Imprimis, from Hillsdale College.

Politically libertarian, religiously big-tent, it's the best of the modern Enlightenment school of thought. As such, it's got its problems, but there is much good to glean, too. Here's a quote:

"Suppose the English government had told Tom Paine that he could go ahead and publish all he liked—but only if at the back of his pamphlets he also printed the Royal Governor’s views. That command, far from an implementation of free speech, would have been just the opposite. It’s a restriction of speech if, in order to be allowed to express your own views, [the government demands] you also have to present those of someone arguing on the other side."

Of course, writers and speakers should try to be fair to opponents, even if they aren't there to defend themselves. That's objectivity, addressed in this same issue by David Brooks.

(Check it out here)

PS - the Brooks article is only here for a short time, so hurry!


  1. So you like my Alma Mater, eh? It is a pretty good place!

  2. Didn't know you were there, Ken!
    I was, too, my freshman year. The religious atmosphere was a bit stifling, though (religion seen as a tool for the greater goal of freedom), and I was considering ministry then so I transferred...

  3. Steve,

    What year were you there? I enjoyed the religion department, though it is a collection of oddities (Burke, Westblade and Bauman). I also benefitted much from Mark Kalthoff.

    The religious atmosphere I would describe as weird. Of those who care anything about faith, most were nutcase charismaniacs (who dominated IV), and some (many of my friends) were on the road to Constantinople. The Reformed people that were there were hardshell theonomists, and the chaplain and most of the leadership were Paleo-Anglo-Catholics! The churchscape was most depressing, though I worked with, and loved, the people at First Pres.

    I graduated in 1993. Where'd you go from there?