Oh brother! And oh, sister! Is this "critical legal studies"
? ;-) My sympathies to Dave McReynolds for having this numnutz
as one of around a thousand SPUSA members. Michael Pugliese
>From: George Greene <greeneg at cs.unc.edu>
>To: asdnet at igc.topica.com, portside at egroups.com, socialistsunmoderated at debs.pinko.net
>Date: 3/26/01 8:02:13 AM
>
>I would like to condemn in the strongest possible terms the
>naivete, bordering on brute stupidity, of all those championing
>the "Free speech" of David Horowitz vs. the human dignity of
black
>people. The people doing this are simply presuming that there
>is some absolute commitment to defense of hate speech by our
enemies
>that we are morally obligated to maintain.
>This is simply not the case.
>It is no more possible to defend "all" speech in a democratic
>polity than it is to have a set of all sets that do not contain
>themselves.
>
>Suppose you have a polity that is currently 55%-45% in favor
of
>free speech. Suppose further that 20% of this polity is a despised
>minority, and another 15% of it is a cadre that despises the
minority
>SO badly that it wants to remove the minority's right to speak.
>
>The question before us when the numbers break down like this
is,
>how much free speech do you give to people advocating the denial
>of free speech? In a democratic polity, people's advocacy has
>effects. The attitudes of the laws toward people's advocacy
>MATTER. If the law blesses the advocacy of the 15%, they may
easily
>succeed in changing the minds of 10% of the current supporters
>of free speech, into agreeing to suppress the speech of the
despised 20%.
>In other words, they can use free speech to destroy free speech.
>
>The absolutist approach championed by fools like David McReynolds,
>has had some chance to flower in this culture because we have
an imperial
>judiciary that can safeguard constitutional rights from the
tyranny
>of the majority. As long as there are 5 liberals on the Supreme
Court,
>we can LET the majority go ahead and pass laws repressing the
humanity
>of despised minorities, because the courts will declare those
laws
>unconstitutional; we don't have to pre-ban the advocates of
hate from
>the arena, even when they are succeeding.
>
>Or do we?
>
>As the fact that our current Supreme Court is 5-4 the WRONG
way
>proves, relying on the Supreme Court while neglecting the
>majoritarian branches will result in eventual loss of rights.
>But what is the alternative? Fighting the good fight in the
public
>political arena, in the marketplace of ideas? I submit to you
that
>THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING for the last 50 years.
>But since 1978, we have been losing the fight.
>Losing the fight SHOULD not mean that people lose their rights.
>SOME things ought to endure. Some rights ought to be inalienable.
>Unfortunately, McReynolds et al think absolute free speech is
one of
>these. But it can't be. A strong commitment to it, FOR OPPONENTS
>of human rights, is one of the easiest ways to LOSE both free
>speech AND the other human rights.
>An approach that has sense enough to recognize and
>classify SOME kinds of speech as hateful, as fundamentally counter
>to human rights, INCLUDING the right to free speech, is absolutely
>necessary to preven the use of democratic freedoms for the destruction
>of democratic freedoms -- especially in a polity as notoriously
>susceptible to yellow journalism and demagoguery as the American
one.
>
>David McReynolds et al would apparently have you believe that
David
>Horowitz and his ilk are the despised minority and that black
students
>at Brown, Berkeley, and Michigan are trying to create an exception
to
>free speech to repress him. But the truth is the opposite.
>McReynolds and other defenders of Horowitz may insist at this
point
>that he wasn't attacking anybody's free speech or other basic
human
>rights. But that is just ridiculous. Hate speech fosters a
climate
>in which people ARE NOT FREE to speak. What is happening to
Prof.
>Lewis Gordon at Brown now, and what was happening to motivate
the
>black students and their allies there to demand anonymity, what
was
>happening before that that prevented them from getting their
grievances
>redressed, all goes to show which side is really having the
greater
>difficulty getting its ideas into the relevant marketplace,
which side
>is being made to suffer for speaking out, which side must continue
>to pay a high price for speech, speech that will be expensive
rather
>than free (or rather than funded, as in Horowitz' case, by rich
people
>who can easily afford it).
>
> The Dean of the College told the Press that they could
have
> > a press conference after the panel, but there was concern
about
> > their presence harassing people who may not have wanted to
be on
> > camera or for their identities to be made public. The students
> > met. The Dean and others came out afterward. And the Press
wasn't
> > there. They waited in the rain, and then went home.
> > The next day, I was shocked to find out that a student
from
> > the campus paper went on a talk show and imputed to me inflammatory
> > words that I simply did not say. That student's lie stimulated
an
> > environment of fascist, violent reaction that included sending
a
> > black student a threatening letter with a picture of a mutilated
> > black child; countless telephone and email threats of violence
to
> > black students; and my receiving an intensified rush of hate
mail.
> > The circumstance exemplifies my early observation that hate
words
> > are not in the spirit of speech but harm. I subsequently
met with
> > several stations. I am answering the many phone calls from
press
> > officials. It is taking me time. I have, after all, as
do many
> > other professors, obligations to my family, my students,
my
> > colleagues, and, through my effort to defend the right of
assembly
> > and speech for those in the genuine minority, the community.
> > Now, to my chagrin, I am being vilified. I am being
> > accused of things I did not say, and I am being attacked
for not
> > only being a minority, but a minority who speaks out and
has taken
> > the risk of trying my best to assure that students can assemble
> > peaceably at Brown with the assurance that it is an institution
in
> > which each of them is welcomed as a full member.
>
>I suppose, next, we will hear David McReynolds insisting that
the
>student who libeled Prof. Gordon should not be retaliated against
>because that would violate his free speech. The price that
>the black community at Brown is paying for its own speech on
>its own behalf is one that David McReynolds seems less worried
about.
>
>"It is possible to be against two evils at the same time",
>McReynolds has said.
>
>Spare us the hypocrisy.
>
>There is no evidence of McReynolds' being against anything
>that any black people are going through behind this. Actions
>speak louder than words.
>
>The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than
daily.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
>Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>
>