<< Well I seem to be losing this argument at least in terms of the several
people who have criticised my position in a reasoned way, for which I thank
them.
Much obliged to you too.
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 am not sure qhat you mean by this. You said a defense of strong free speech rights against the states was abstract. I suggested otherwise: it's the outgrowth of many thousands of years of concrete experience with intolerance and persecution, religious war, heresy-hunting, etc. One of the great achievements of bourgeois revolution was the idea, which has slowly and not always steadily taken root and blossomed, taht we can toleratea diversity of views without having to run to the cops to shut up the ones we don't like. The hard cases are those that really offend us, of course. The problem is, everyone is offended by something different.
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".
Of course liberal democracy arises, historically, from the bourgeois revolution. It also depends for its promotion and expansion on radical and working class struggles that push it beyond the limitations of its historical origins. Marx has some deep and interesting things to say about rights, but we needn't try to decipher these here. Ina ny cases the "bourgeosi" rights are precious legacies of the bourgeois revolution, an inheritance to preserve in the proletarian one.
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,
In the abstract, it's hard to say whether it's a good thing or not. I think it's fine to give repressive powersd to the state to enforce laws against murder, rape, and robbery. But agaist thought-crime? I think not.
>because I do assume a process whereby we will take over, or overthrow, the
state.
Well, if so, not in the immediate future. But even if we do, look what happenedw hen Stalinist regimes banned thought-crime.
>I think what is banned is a matter of struggle.
Sure. Aside from the fact that the record suggest it''s s truggle we might lose, why the urgency to bad bad thoughts? You suggest taht they have bad tendencies because they might lead to violence:
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.
But the point of the Clear & Present Danger Test is that as long as it's not about to ignite the fire, the proper response to bigotry is not to call the cops but to argue, refute, ridicule, and otherwise remonstrate.
>The promotion of such ideas should not be permissable.
Because they're offensive? Well, the promotion of homosexuality is offensive to some people. Because they are likely to lead to violence--against gays? IHow likely? If the problem is violence, why not punish that?
>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.
How about adverts for auto sales, which result in 50,000+ deaths on the highway a year in this country?
>It is not
a scientific attitude to causation to accept as valid only the most
immediate proximate causes.
No one denies the causal link is there to some degree. But if you are concerned about the harm of homophobic, etc, violence, you have to also worry about the harm of repression of ideas. If the first kind of harm is likely enough ("Get that fag!"), them the latter concern counts less. The more remote and tenuous the causal link ("I hate fags."), the more the free speech concern has weight.
>Homophobia causes gay lynchings just as low
social class causes poor health.
Maybe we should outlaw not merely homophobic expressions, but homophobia itself as an attitude. Make it inferrable from behavior and prosecutable criminally on am information from the public. "I'm sorry, Mr. Buford, you're under arrest for homophobia. You failed to hug your friend on parting."
> 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.
That's my concern. I want to promulgate inflamamtory and divisive propaganda--calling for class war--and I think it cannot be effectively restricted without the help state laws.
>. If you really want a revolutionary change you must get your
hands dirty with reforms.
But the reforms should be constructive.
> 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.
Sure, them, and every other right.
>No platform for homophobia!
I'll support that, but I'll also say: no prison or fines for it either.
>I really am surprised at the extent of the
defence of rule of bourgeois law, *as a matter of principle*, on this list.
It's like what they about getting older. Just consider the alternative.
--jks