----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bartlett" <billbartlett at dodo.com.au> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The curse of literacy
: At 5:01 PM -0700 17/7/04, R wrote:
:
: >we yanks aren't all alike, bill. i must agree with jon that in the US
the
: >first amendment is crucial. nobody in their right mind, either in the US
or
: >tasmania, advocates it be used for hate speech. but that is a very nasty
: >price we pay for having free speech.
: >
: >yes, our bill of rights has almost been eliminated; large portions of our
: >constitution have been perverted. that's certainly not a priority of
mine
: >or of anyone else i know. tolerating free speech is not the cause of
this
: >difficulty. *not* tolerating free speech is one of the causes.
: >
: >although "yank" isn't exactly a compliment where you come from, i have no
: >problem with you or anyone using it.
:
: "Yank" isn't necessarily derogatory, depends.
:
how is one to know?
tell me "yank" never incites hate, scorn, discrimination. tell me it is never used as hate speech. tell me that every american who hears the word can make an unemotional, rational decision as to its intent.
more importantly, tell me how you would draw the line between when it's derogatory and when it isn't, since you're into drawing lines. how would you do this? would you pass laws? if you outlaw the word "yank" because of its derogatory meaning, would self policing be enough? would you set up a govt agency? would you have speech police? how would you word a law that states how to interpret when "yank" is derogatory and when it isn't? how would the draw-the-line-somewhere system you believe is necessary determine the intent of the person saying "yank" -- by trials? what would be the punishment for using "yank" in a derogatory manner?
i assume you know, there are parts of the world where it is never anything but derogatory, like GB.
: Free speech is one thing, but you have to draw the line somewhere, I
: draw the line at hate speech. Of course this isn't the cause of the
: loss of other essential liberties, but perhaps it is a symptom.
if you draw a line, it's not free speech. you, personally, can draw a line anywhere you want. but if your line is purely subjective, how does that help society?
i'm confused. do you mean hate speach "isn't the cause of the loss of other essential liberties"? that hate speech is a symptom of the "loss of other essential liberties"?
:
: It seems to me that defending the right of people to incite racial
: hatred in the name of free speech betrays a kind of blinkered vision.
the same argument is repeatedly made about speech inciting workers to strike, about inciting protesters against nuclear violence to protest, about speeches inciting demonstrators against MNCs to protest, and so forth. people make these judgments based on their politics -- usually right wing.
the danger in your thinking is the issue of where one draws the line and who -- such as a govt agency, policing power, a czar -- one gives this censorship right to. where free speech issues are concerned, control always errs on the side of abuse of control.
: The same kind of tunnel vision that is on display from those who
: justify betraying the fundamental principles of the rule of law, in
: the name of defending democracy.
:
i find those betraying fundamental principles of the rule of law -- if this isn't so generalized a concept as to be almost meaningless -- are working to destroy liberty and freedom. democracy doesn't enter the equation.
to me free speech is a fundamental principle of law and, most importantly, human rights. to censor it is to destroy any hope of free govt by an informed public.
you can not censor and have free speech at the same time. free speech with a line drawn through it is a contradiction in terms. you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
: Free speech is extremely important, but it is extremism to talk as if
: there are no limits.
it's not that simple. it is exremism to limit political free speech in any form simply because you don't agree with its contents. you can not pick and choose what is free speech and wind up with free speech. as repugnant as some forms of free speech are, you must tolerate them in order to have free speech.
tolerance of free speech doesn't mean you don't refute obnoxious forms of speech. in fact, it means you rebut them in an atmosphere of free speech and information. in that context, they loose their appeal.
The line has to be drawn at the point where one
: person's "free speech" interferes with another person's right to live
: free of fear and discrimination.
i would be interested in an example or two of a speech or speeches which you believe meet your criteria of interference.
there are lines drawn. but the line generally is drawn at the point of the result of the speech, not with free speech itself. when a cause and effect relationship was demonstrated, for example in the case of a book teaching how to kill and advocating murder, the book was banned by our "conservative" courts for not falling under provisions of protected speech. but such a case is highly controversial and has ramifications elaborated in amicus briefs which remain to be worked out over several years.
there is no a priori line that can be drawn if there is to be political free speech. to suggest an a priori line can be drawn is to demonstrate you do not understand free speech. free speech does not interfere with another person's rights. lack of free speech interferes with people's rights. a particular form of free speech that is repugnant, advocates racial discrimination, for example, is still a person's right to express an opinion. if you disagree with that opinion, you have the same right to argue against it. and you have the right to consider the source and ignore it.
when you state that free speech alone can interfere with another person's right to live free of fear and discrimination you give too much power to hostile, irrational speech, and you greatly overestimate the stupidity, ignorance and gullibility of your fellow human beings. just because a racist lunatic makes speeches advocating racism doesn't mean the targets of his/her speeches begin living in fear and discrimination. it doesn't mean any more than a small, disturbed number of people think s/he's right or will follow his/her ideas, if that. and it doesn't mean decent people put up with this nonsense.
people do not live in fear and discrimination because racist lunatics talk, bluster, threaten, rant, preech. it's not this simple. the US is much more at risk today from its own govt than from racists indulging in free speech.
the actual threat in your ideas lies with the issue who does the deciding where the draw the line you advocate, not in the content of free speech. this represents much more of a danger to society than lunatics making speeches.
for example, the ashcroft dept of justice in the US would be delighted to tell us all what causes them "fear and discrimination," what we can say and cannot say, do and cannot do. any critique of fundamentalist religion and its politics would become illegal just so they could live happy, satisfied lives. just as we can not have people telling us what religion to believe, we cannot have people telling us what to say and not say.
Your right to kick up your heels or
: swing your arms about also has to give way to my right not to have my
: bones broken.
:
i doubt you have any worries when i'm in the US and you're in tasmania. otherwise, i think you'd be smart enough to get out of the way.
this is a terrible metaphor, bill. speech doesn't break bones. one more reason not to supress free speech is to prevent violence from taking its place. often when people rant and rave, they get their frustrations out of their system and settle down. it's much better when people are talking than when they are attacking each other. what do you think one of the things the United Nations was intended to do?
you have a right to respond to and argue against speech you don't like with no one getting hurt.
R
: Bill Bartlett
: Bracknell Tas
:
: ___________________________________
: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk