>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 03/22/00 08:09PM >>>
Sam Pawlett wrote:
>Speech is an act and should be treated like all other acts. If certain
>speech acts cause harm to a certain person or group of persons those
>persons need protection in the same way that potential victims of
>physical violence need protection. I would make a distinction between
>speech that is offensive and speech that is harmful. Speech that offends
>does not necessarily harm.
So if a capitalist feels harmed if you or I were to shout "Expropriate the expropriators!," should we be prosecuted? I hate to invoke a cliche like "slippery slope," but it seems to me we're on one here.
_____________
CB: We should not be prosecuted for saying that. Slippery slope is what law professors say, but then when law professors want to draw a line, split hairs, as lawyers constantly do, they have no problem finding an effective stop to the slip that they want to stop. There is no logical problem with distinguishing fascistic racist speech from other speech anymore than distinguishing shouting "fire" falsely in a crowded theatre from shouting "fire" truly in a crowded theatre. There is no logical slippery slope between outlawing fascistic racist speech and outlawing socialist speech. Fascistic racist speech is as different from socialist speech as false is from true, as day is from night. From a logical standpoint fascistic racist speech is closer to liberal speech than communist speech. Note in this debate how the liberals are defending the fascistic racist speech, to which they are closer than communists.
Anyway, the bourgeosie have already jailed communists for shouting "expropriate the expropriators" ( in 1919, 1927, 1949) and it was not based on any SLIPPERY SLOPE between outlawing fascistic racist speech slipping into outlawing communist speech, because the fascistic racist speech was protected and not outlawed at the time that the capitalists outlawed communist speech. So, avoidance of the slippery slope has not protected communist speech in U.S. jurisprudential history.
The line here is FASCISTIC RACIST speech. It is a narrow exception to general freedom of speech. "Expropriate the expropriators" is the opposite of a fascistic racist phrase, so drawing a line between the two types of speech is a piece of cake.
CB