Postmodern Censorship Revisited: A Reply to Richard Delgado

Abstract

Richard Delgado's recent response' to my article, The Case Against Postmodern Censorship Theo7y,2 provides a concise example of the phenomenon addressed in my original piece. Professor Delgado's essay illustrates many of the problematic characteristics I find scattered throughout postmodern censorship theory-in particular, its failure to address the broader consequences of proposed doctrinal changes in free-speech jurisprudence, its tendency to slide into rhetorical excess and allegations of bad faith against those who challenge the wisdom of broad speech-regulation proposals, and its political naivete. Unfortunately, Professor Delgado's response adds little to what he has already said on the subject and does not confront many of the very difficult issues at the heart of this debate. It strikes me as a political response, not an academic one. At one level, therefore, my inclination is simply to suggest that readers go back to the original sources-my article and the work of various postmodern censorship theorists cited therein-and leave it at that. On the other hand, I fear that some readers will read Professor Delgado's succinct response and avoid wading through the original 104-page document. Those readers will be left with an inaccurate impression of what I said in my article, and an equally inaccurate impression of the real issues in these discussions. To avoid these misunderstandings, I feel obligated to respond to what Professor Delgado said, and to comment briefly on what he did not say.