>>> James Farmelant wrote:
I think that this comparison between Marcuse and Justice Holmes is an apt one. Holmes was BTW a prominent early legal realist and a friend of pragmatist philosopher, William James. Since Justin is himself a legal realist (he would describe himself as a Marxian legal realist) one might think that he would not be so quick to dismiss Marcuse's arguments. Just as J.S. Mill attempted to defend free speech on consequentialist grounds so Macuse likewise attempted to use consequentialist reasoning to show that there were circumstances under which speech could be legitimately limited. One can concede the general validity of Mill's arguments (such as Mill's contention that free speech is a necessary condition for the collective search for truth)
-clip- __________ Charles: On the issue of the search for truth and Freedom of Speech, a progressive understanding of the First Amendment is that it should protect the working class and People's right to know the truth. The value of truth is the obvious basis of , say, Mr. Justice Holmes's example of excepting
the FALSE cry of "fire" in a crowded theater from First Amendment protection. Since racial supremacy is false as demonstrated by science, (esp. biology and anthropology; although of course, there are new struggles in academe against "scientific" racist doctrines) this is another basis for denying racist doctrine free speech protection. As Attorney and legal scholar Ann Fagan Ginger wrote in "The New U.S. Criminal Statute, the First Amendment and the New Internatinal Information Order (Guild Practitioner -1988)
"When the First Amendment was adopted, everyone knew that libel was not free speech, that telling lies about someone was not protected speech. This was not protected speech. This was part of the common law of England because lies imperil the public peace. The comon law was transmitted to the colonies and hence to the new United States. Now everyone will learn that genocide is not free speech, that inciting genocide is not protected because it imperils the public peace. It falsely cries "Fire" in the crowded theatre that is 20th Century America, falsely blaming minority groups for problems the majority face."
Charles Brown
_________________________
while arguing that certain forms of speech such as what Charles would call "fascist racist" speech may prove to be incompatible with the ends that free speech is supposed to serve. Thus if racist speech has the effect of helping to demoralize whole sections of the populace so that they withdraw from public discourse then theend which which free speech is supposed to serve - the collective search for truth - will to that extent be impaired. One could then argue not unlike Marcuse that under such circumstances, restrictions on certain forms of speech may prove to be conducive to the ends that free speech is supposed to serve.
Jim Farmelant
>..HM thought, for example, that racist speech represented a 'clear and
>present danger' that should not be tolerated...of course, in the US
>the 'intolerance thesis' has been most often used to suppress the
>left...
>
>Marcuse argues in his essay that 'pure' or abstract tolerance (ie.,
>free speech for left and right) is repressive because 'neutrality'
>serves the status quo...dominant social institutions 'immunize' people
>
>against oppositional ideas...of course, a few 'break through' and read
>Against the Current, Left Business Observer, Monthly Review, etc.
>(today, I guess that would include participating on e-lists like this
>one) but that only proves that 'tolerance' exists...in this sense,
>toleration is elitist (and smarmy) because of the unequal
>circumstances...
>Michael Hoover
>
___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]