On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:26:55 -0500 (EST) "Michael Hoover"
<hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us> writes:
>> As I recall Herbert Marcuse
>> (who himself was attracted to utilitarianism) was able to Mill's
>> utilitarianism against the defense of free speech as an absolute
>> right. Marcuse argued that under certain circumstances reactionary
>> speech could be justifiably repressed particularly racist and/or
>> pro-fascist speech. He took the view that the failure of the Weimar
>> Republic to repress the Nazis paved the way for their eventual
>> ascension to power.
>> Jim Farmelant
>
>Marcuse's 'critique of pure tolerance' (the title of the book in which
>his essay *Repressive Tolerance* was published along with ones by
>Robert Paul Wolff & Barrington Moore) is similar to US Supreme Court
>Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' 'clear & present danger' doctrine
>holding that civil liberties can be suspended under certain
>conditions.
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) 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]