>I do not see the argument against laws restricting freedom of speech to
>stir up sexuality hatred, like race hatred. The latter have certainly
>helped in the UK. There is even here a logic in democratic dictatorship and
>departing from a totally radical agenda of complete individual bourgeois
>democratic rights. I would have thought placards like "Aids cures fags"
>should be an offence.
In general, I would argue that trying to legislate against reactionary ideas fails. You cannot change somebody's point of view by passing a law against it, you can only do it directly, by confronting those prejudices. I don't see it is the business of the state to legislate for people's beliefs, however reactionary (or progressive) those beliefs are.
Better to face down the homophobes through direct action than leave yourself in the hands of an untrustworthy police response.
As to Britain, I entirely reject the assessment that Britain's extensive censorship and libel laws have made the country a better place. On the contrary they have contributed to an atmosphere of repressive moralism and conformity. More to the point they have done nothing to address racial violence. In fact, the police in East London regularly victimise Asians on the spurious grounds that they are perpetrators of racial violence against white East Enders!
-- Jim heartfield