>>> "Nathan Newman" <nathan.newman at yale.edu> 03/15/00 12:44PM >>>
>On Behalf Of Charles Brown
>
> CB: Well, I take an "absolutist" position on freedom from racism,
> and when freedom of speech conflicts with it, freedom from racism
> must prevail.
> So , I say the political value of freedom from racism is more
> important than the value of freedom of speech.
You are conflating action that can always be restricted.
***********
CB: No, it is not conflation. It is materialism, which unlike idealism, places as lot of emphasis on the unity of theory and practice, not their separation.
And furthermore, society has absolutely no interest, including no interest in protecting, "pure" ideas or thoughts, i.e. those which by definition never result in or have any effect on action. This is a criticism of the standard liberal notion of "pure" thought or speech. Society is only interested, one way or the other, in thoughts that DO result in action. It is only "conflated" speech-action that society has any interest in. If it stays permanently in a person's head and doesn't effect their action, then society has no interest in it. Usually, liberals argue that this is why it should be protected. But they never realize that there is no interest of prohibiting it OR PROTECTING IT. NEITHER. Liberalism, Civil liberalism, gets the former but not the latter. The only ideas or speech society has interest in is those which are not pure and result in action. The only action fascistic racist speech and thought will result in we want to stop. So, we are justified in nipping it i! n the bud, in speech and organization.
**********
Racial harassment and discrimination can be barred under the law without touching free speech. Hate speech laws that increase penalties for racist ACTION is completely compatible with free speech principles.
*********
CB: No, it is more effective to reach the thought before it results in action. By the time the action occurs, it is too late. We want to prevent racist actions, not just punish them after they occur.
***********
But I guarantee you that if free speech is eroded, it is advocates against racism that are the ones most likely to end up losing their rights to speak. Conservatives already love to talk about "hate speech" by those who denounce white racism. In practice, there is almost no examples where suppression of speech has served antiracist ends, but plenty where suppression of speech has been the tool of racism.
***********
CB: This is an analogous line of argument that I have replied to twenty times on this list with respect to freedom of communist and left speech. Advocates against racism have already had their speech rights eroded, while at the very same timer acists have had "freedom" of speech. Ergo, history shows that the "freedom" of racists to speak does not translate into freedom for anti-racists to speak. So, advocating "freedom" for fascist racists will not result in protection anti-racist speech. We have nothing to lose in trying to outlaw fascistic racist speech.
If you want to protect the speech of anti-racists, fight for it directly. Do not try to get it indirectly by protecting fascistic racist speech. And certainly don't group them together as "unpopular" speech. Lefts and anti-racists should not have a jurisprudence that argues that fascistic racist speech and left/anti-racist speech are in the same category. They are opposites , in progressive and socialist jurisprudence. "Hate" speech is not a left category. Our category is "advocacy" or incitement to genocide", as in the UN Convention for Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.