It is not a very good argument and I am sure not persuasive for me to reply that I think you all do over-estimate in an absolutist way the idea of legal rights. Justin for example refering to thousands of years.
I was trying to do something more than disparage legal rights when I referred to them repeatedly as bourgeois. I was trying to develop a theoretical point which I happen to believe is fundamental for how we orientate ourselves in complex struggles in civil society. The marxist source for this is obscure and lies to the best of my knowledge in Marx's controversial article "On the Jewish Question".
Another important difference I see with my critics is that I do not automatically think it is wrong to give repressive powers to the state, because I do assume a process whereby we will take over, or overthrow, the state. I think what is banned is a matter of struggle.
I do believe that there is a psychological background to violence that is not covered by Clear and Present Danger (thanks to Justin for that point). I think people carrying placards with statements like "Aids cures fags", know that they are spreading a belief that it is a good thing if homsexuals are cured by death, and their death should be contemplated without too much pity. This is dry tinder awaiting a spark.
The promotion of such ideas should not be permissable. I would also say that the promotion of cigarette smoking should not be legal. Even though the statistical risk is small of any particular death it is real. It is not a scientific attitude to causation to accept as valid only the most immediate proximate causes. Homophobia causes gay lynchings just as low social class causes poor health.
I do accept that democratic debate, struggle, and persuasion are better to overcome homophobia and race hate than state laws, but I argue it is idealist to think that inflammatory divisive propaganda can we restricted without the help of state laws.
I can see my stance on this could be subject to criticism from some quarters as reformist. But I would reply to my critics that to assume the state will always, in every aspect remain under the control of the enemy is to accept that we are marginal, and we can only criticise from the sidelines. If you really want a revolutionary change you must get your hands dirty with reforms.
This issue of restricting the damaging effects of homophobia on the unity of working people is one illustration of it. Note how I define the damage. That way of looking at the damage is even more important than protecting a small number of individuals from death and being maimed. (After all young men are continually injuring each other in all sorts of tribal confrontations. Young men are the biggest victims of personal violence.}
As far as (bourgeois) democratic rights are concerned we should not absolutise them, but decide which ones to support and campaign for according to the context and the balance of advantage for working people. No platform for homophobia! I really am surprised at the extent of the defence of rule of bourgeois law, *as a matter of principle*, on this list.
Chris Burford
London.
At 04:20 AM 10/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Chris,
>
>The effect of laws prohibiting hate speech would be to allow the state to
>determine what speech is hateful and which is not. To me this is the
>cusp. There is a world of difference between Doug tossing someone off
>this list for being a troll, or people hurling rotten tomatoes at a
>reactionary shitferbrains and giving the state wide ranging powers to
>determine what forms of speech it defines as acceptable. Inevitably hate
>speech laws would be used to suppress leftists. Leftists have much more
>to lose from censorship than anyone on the right. Not only are bourgeois
>rights not absolute, but the state that enforces those rights is
>structurally racist, sexist and heterosexist at its core.
>
>Besides, occasionally when people are hurling stuff at the Phelps clan
>every once in awhile they miss and hit a cop.
>
>
>
>Sean Noonan
>seanno at ksu.edu