Charles Brown wrote:
>>> jf noonan <jfn1 at msc.com> 10/15/99 05:11PM >>>
>>In any event, I'm completely opposed to hate speech laws so that's
>>not what I would be chastizing them about anyway.
((((((((((
>Charles: How did I know that ? :>0
The details in Charles's original post on this thread all concerned cases in which simple enforcement of "ordinary" law also got those guilty of hate speech. I don't give any great priority to freedom of spreech in the abstract -- but I give considerable priority to containing the police power of the bourgeois state. Hence, in so far as it is useful to limit certain speech freedoms (such as hate speech) I prefer to do it by direct action rather than by supporting additional power for the cops -- an additional power which willl be used selectively against leftists, as anti-pornography laws in Canada have been used to suppress gay and lesbian speech.
In addition the most damaging hate speech is respectable and could never be reached by law -- e.g. the authors of *The Bell Curve*. They and their like need to be the focus of useful mass mobilization to boo them off the stage rather than complaints to the police.
Laws banning hate speech are too much like the annual "Not in Our Town" forums held here in Bloomington Illinois. They were begun in response to the publicity about church burnings in the south. They serve primarily the purpose of wasting the time of anti-racists and giving real racists the opportunity to preen themselves on their "tolerance."
Carrol