> >You want to pretend that somehow the decision on what is "racism" is
> >uniquely influenced by the state powers you don't like, but
> >decisions on other policies are not .
Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 03/15/00 06:11PM >>>
> I'm drawing a distinction between what the state does and what it
> does or does not allow people to say. There's a big difference in my
> book, even if speech is a kind of act.
CB: I would have thought the distinction you want to draw
> is between what people do and say. The state is doing
> something when it prevents people from saying something ,
> so I fail to see a distinction in that aspect.
>
> My point does not turn on the fact that speech is a kind
> of act. My point is that speech results in actions; or,
> in the case where it never does result in action, the
> state and society has no interest in preventing it or
> protecting it.
But speech is an action. In (some) liberal theory, it's a kind of action which is (somewhat) protected from government interference. But it is not protected when it transgresses certain other rights boundaries, as in libel or copyright violation. I believe this is the basis for Catherine MacKinnon's project to get pornography outlawed, because it's a form of speech which, according to her, _in_itself_ damages with well-being and good repute of women, regardless of whether it leads to other bad actions.
So one might construct a similar argument for laws against racist speech. However, as with pornography, one runs into the problem of definition: the democratic government will probably be required to define not only racism but race and to assign individuals to races and prescribe rules for behaviors across racial boundaries. This would negate the possibility of nonracism, perhaps permanently. At the same time, there does not seem to be any guarantee that such a policy would actually reduce or inhibit racist ideas and practices, which can easily be concealed in codes or performed out of sight. Nor would it touch "objective racism", for instance the difference in net worth of families per racial category recently noted here. In fact, it could be used to obstruct public consciousness of such facts, as in "There ain't no racism here, we outlawed it."
I suppose one should also notice that we are leaving the realm of liberal rights theory where I think we started, in which rights are supposed to be impervious to the whims of the demos as well as those of other powers.
Gordon