>>> <JKSCHW at aol.com> 03/23/00 11:55AM >>>
Charles says:
>
> 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.
>
Sure the line is easy to draw. Just outlaw any speech that really ticks off Charles. He's a commie,s o exproporiating expropriators is all right with him, but fascist racists are not, so we can shut them up.
___________
CB: Doug already pulled this one. No, this is not the standard I am proposing. My definition of fascistic racist speech is every bit as objective and not tied to my individual subjectivity as every legal line drawing you, Justin, and all your law professors and judges put together have ever and will ever do. I could just go around replying to all of your posts and say the same thing about all the objective or logical line drawing you claim to do here. So what. You have not produced an iota of argument that my argument is the way you mockingly slander it above.
By the way, in the real legal world , Cuba, Canada and France, et al., have anti-fascist speech laws that have not resulted in confusing the completely opposite difference between fascistic racism and socialism.
_________
On reflection, Charles has persuaded me. I am turning in my ACLU card. But I think we should start earlier than speech. we should outlaw fascist racist _thoughts_. Proving mental states poses no special legal problems. They can be inferred from action, as we allow inference of discriminatory motive from actions without any direct evidence of discriminatory statements. So, people who oppose affirmative action by failing to vote for it, or who read The Bell Curve, or who laugh at ethnic jokes, should be subject to legal action. Criminal sanctions should be available, but since the standard of proof is high, I would want civil actions available, in the manner of MacKinnon's antiporn legislation. I would want the possibility of punitive damages for willfully thinking fascist racist thoughts, because after all these thoughts are very very bad.
_________
CB: As I pointed out when someone said something like this in response to my article on this subject, thought is not detectable. However, the idea IS to eventually get no one to think as a fascistic racist. Justin ridiculously thinks his sarcastic argument here really makes a good case against eliminating fascistic racist thought.
If we actually could make it so that no one ever thought a racist or male supremacist thought again, it would be one of the most freedom loving, democratic, liberational, wonderful achievements in the history of humanity. It would be more important than the passage of the First Amendment. It would be absolutely fabulous if a racist or sexist thought never crossed anyone's mind again.
Justin's statement here really is a case of philosophical idealism. Thought is sacred for idealists. Being is of secondary concern to them.
CB