>Never mind just now. I guess I think it odd that you
>worried about the economic threat to free speech of an
>incentive structure that encouraged efficiency by
>allowing firms to be put out of business, which is
>pretty attenuated in my view, but it doesan't bother
>yout to allow the state to lock up people for saying
>bad things.
I don't think there is an obvious inconsistency there. Though I don't recall being worried about co-operative firms being put out of business. My concern was that, without personal economic security, free speech would be undermined. This is particularly important in a co-operative, where all the workers would be collectively responsible for management.
I would say that this is not so much inconsistent, as the other side of the same coin, so to speak. In asserting that, in the context of class society, it is necessary to strongly sanction those who incite hatred and violence, I am merely pointing out that with rights go responsibilities. And of course in our sort of society responsibilities must be enforced.
On the other side of the coin, my experience with co-operatives has lead me to conclude that unless people have certain rights, it is futile expecting them to shoulder the responsibilities of a co-operative decision-making structure. Personal economic security is the biggest practical issue. If people feel insecure, this will corrupt the democratic decision-making process in many different ways, which is obviously quite a serious problem for a co-operative.
I recall that you argued along the lines that insecurity was a good thing, it would provide an incentive to work hard and so on. Which is fine, if working hard was a guarantee of success. But that's the flaw in the theory, it isn't. So people will try to manipulate the process to increase their own personal security, often contrary to their own (and every one else's) longer term self-interest. They do this out of fear. It is totally debilitating and extremely common in co-operatives, because they operate in the context of a dog-eat-dog society.
What I was trying to explain was that, if you want a society in which the economy is managed co-operatively, it won't work unless those workers have economic security. They won't make sensible decisions, they'll make short-term selfish decisions. That is to say, it is no use giving people responsibility without the freedoms which they logically must have to properly exercise them.
Just responsibility without freedom is unworkable, I am also saying that freedoms, without the responsibility that goes with those freedoms, is unworkable. In fact, you Americans seem to fetishise freedom of speech, rather than truly appreciate it.
There may even be something in the suggestion that freedom of speech is wasted on yanks. ;-)
> What exactly do you see as the benefits of
>> permitting people to go around inciting hatred and
>> crime?
>
>None. But I do see benefit in protecting abstract
>advocacy of ideas others might find hateful,
>including, e.g., communist ideas. US law says that you
>can't pick and choose on the basis of content as long
>it's abstract advocacy, which gets the state out of
>the business of censoring the content of pepople's
>thought. That means freedom of speech is for those
>whose ideas we hate, which is really the key thing.
Its an attractive argument. But of course in a democratic country the political state is the people. (There's some holes in that old argument of mine, but no-one seems to have noticed, so I'll keep on arguing it until you do.) The people will, and are entitled, to determine what responsibilities go with what freedoms. Inciting hateful bigotry serves no conceivable good, unlike advocacy of radical social change. But of course a law can be changed and the people are free in a democracy to repeal hate speech legislation if some useful purpose should become apparent.
It isn't just a matter of us being repulsed by hate speech, you have to remember that such bigotry causes serious harm to real people. It causes people to live in fear, to suffer discrimination and greatly diminishes their quality of life. This can't be justified by any supposed benefits of freedom of speech and these injuries aren't a side effect, it is the desired effect of inciting hatred.
> >
>> If someone says they intend to commit genocide you
>> don't wait around until they start carrying out the
> > threat.
>
>If somesone says they intend to overthrow the
>capitalist state, you don't wait until they make good
>on the threat, likewise? Ho do you argue for the
>protection of socialist ideas, or irreligious ideas,
>etc.? Do you trust the state to sort out good content
>from bad content? In AMerica, we don't.
In America you don't trust the state to do anything, yet you seem to have the biggest meanest state around. But one that doesn't seem to do anything useful, isn't even expected to do anything good. Its something of a puzzle.
There have been a few attempts to ban socialist ideas in Australia, the IWW was outlawed in Australia back around WW1. The conservative government tried to ban the Communist Party during the cold war, but the High Court over-ruled them and when the ban was put to a referendum it was defeated. It isn't so easy to get ideas repressed in a free country and if there is a democratic will for it to happen, then it will happen. As it has in the US, despite your theoretical guarantee of free speech.
>Well, there is hate CRIMES legislation in many states.
>If yoy commit what is independently a crime because of
>bigotry, you have committed a further crime, under
>those statutes. But mere hate speech is protected,
>yes. In that respect, the US is freer than OZ.
You are free to incite other people to commit hate crimes, you can do that with impunity. But those weak-brained fools who are incited will be punished severely *after* they cause injury. That's a big comfort to those injured, I'm, sure. [heavy sarcasm]
>It's possible to have a relatively free society that
>bans some expression on the basis of content. Many
>countries in Europe do.
Most western countries do. As Usual, the US is the rogue state.
> I didn't know about Australia.
>I think it's a bad idea. If I could afford to do it,
>I'd work full time for the ACLU defending the right of
>scumbags to spout their rubbish, as wella s therights
>of reds and rads to rail against the existing order.
Of course, if the legal right to incite hatred exists, it is important to ensure that this right is legally enforced. The worst thing is to have legal rights which are routinely ignored or arbitrarily enforced.
> > And of course Nazi Germany was a police state,
>> despite the unlimited freedom to espouse hatred of
>> minority groups.
>
>Totally specioous. There there was content regulation
>as you well know. You were NOT free to espouse
>tolerance or criticise the the govt.
It was specious, but for another reason. What distinguishes a police state from a state with the rule of law is not any particular laws, but whether or not the judiciary is independent and free from improper influence and there is a true separation of powers. The situation with the judiciary in the US is problematic, you have this awful practice of electing judges which means they are not free from political influence.
Then there are such things as mandatory sentencing laws and the mandatory no-remand laws, which basically just transfer discretionary sentencing power from the judiciary to the police, quite contrary to the principle of an independent judiciary. A couple of states in Australia have introduced mandatory sentencing, though one has since repealed it. It is quite offensive to the idea of a free country to give excessive powers to the police, not to mention counter-productive from a law and order perspective.
>The proper response to expression of dumb and hateful
>ideas is to refute them, not to jail the people who
>express them. Sheesh.
>
>A police state can have the sort rule of law you
>mention, that is, apply repressive laws even-handedly.
>that doesn't make it less than a police state.
That might be the crux of our disagreement. I strongly disagree. I think that, as the word "police" in "police state" implies, the important thing is that in a police state the police rule. In a state where the rule of law operates, the law rules.
Obviously the US cannot be regarded as a state where the rule of law operates. Not anymore, since there are people locked up by your government outside the law. Where the government, not the law, is able to simply execute people outside the law.
So it follows the US is now, officially, a police state. Still got your freedom of speech, you can say anything you like. But the government can also have you shot with impunity, so I don't really see how freedom of speech would be much comfort.
The only comfort I have is that I'm probably not worth the expense of a cruise missile to take me out. But I guess it depends on what I say.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas