>>> "Dace" <edace at flinthills.com> 03/24/00 02:19AM >>>
From: Charles Brown
>
>>>> "Dace" <edace at flinthills.com> 03/23/00 03:15PM >>
>While I still disagree with Charles that "talk causes action," sometimes
>talk is not really just talk but a kind of action in itself and can be
>prohibited when that action is harmful, such as intimidation. Using words
>for a purpose other than expression is profanity. This is the only true
>meaning of "profanity." When the terms are defined correctly, "speech" is
>protected, "profanity" is not.
>
>____________
>
>CB: When fascistic racists make a speech at a rally or to any audience ,
their purpose is to persuade the audience to act according to what they are
saying, n'est-ce pas ?
>
If a racist makes a speech in which the sole objective is to persuade, then
this cannot be banned. Even if you're trying to persuade people to commit a
violent act, all you can really do is persuade them that such an act is
correct. They have to take the next step of translating that opinion into
action. So, you're leaving out a crucial step. Persuasion does not lead
directly to action. That intermediate step is what separates speech from
action and makes the actor, not the talker, culpable.
_________
CB: When you say cannot be banned, this is not even correct in the U.S. Supreme Court standard on the First Amendment. If speech is incitement to imminent lawless action, it can be banned, prohibited. This is the Brandenburg standard. The speaker and the actor BOTH can be convicted of committing a crime.
CB