>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.
"Yank" is never "hate speech" coming from an Australian. (I can't speak for others.) It may sometimes be somewhat scornful, but that's a different kettle of fish. A bit of scorn goes with the territory of being a yank, don't you reckon? ;-)
>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?
I'd make it compulsory. ;-)
> 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?
Being derogatory is not the same as inciting hate. You need to get things in perspective.
>i assume you know, there are parts of the world where it is never anything
>but derogatory, like GB.
Oh dear, you yanks are very sensitive sometimes. Why on earth should it bother you that a pom says something derogatory about you?
>: 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?
There's nothing subjective about it. If (out of hatred) something you say is intended, or likely, to incite others to attack or discriminate, or otherwise injure a particular section of people, that is hate speech. This is a line that can be objectively determined.
>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.
Well its true that this is incitement. But it isn't incitement to hatred, or incitement to racial hatred.
>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.
Like it or not our society has political government and this is how society is governed, by laws. I advocate something entirely different but that's what we have now. Given that there is political power and it can be used in certain ways, we need to take steps to rule out certain consequences.
of course a society where political power did not exist and therefor could not be used to effect vile ends would not require the same legal constraints. But let's not confuse these different things
>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.
You are fetishing free speech
>: 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.
No, I don't have to tolerate them at all. The fact is that racism is intolerable, it is incompatible with a just and free society. Free speech is meaningless if it only applies to some sections of society and of course it can't possible apply equally in a society where racial discrimination is the rule. The discriminated against won't be entitled to it, because they are effectively non-citizens.
So what I'm saying is that free speech can't really exist without some limits. Those who fetishise free speech effectively destroy it in practise.
>
>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.
You can rebut a philosophy, but when someone advocates causing actual injury to minority groups it is more than an abstract idea. It is a threat. Threats don't have to be tolerated.
>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.
Well, let's say someone writes a book that suggests that Jews are sub-human and should be eliminated. Deported en-masse, imprisoned in concentration camps, or simply killed. Let's say the author is suggesting that the majority ethnic group are inherently racially superior and therefor ought to rule over inferior peoples.
That's well over the line. Lock the maniac up I say and definitely burn his book. Its all very well to debate it with him, but I suggest it is unacceptable for him to be allowed the chance to debate this idea.
I ask you, is it acceptable to you that his ideas be given the chance to spread? What if many people, for some reason, decide he is correct? What if they want to act on those ideas, which would be natural enough if they agree with them?
Once you argue that it is acceptable for him to argue his disgusting ideas, it must be inferred that it is also acceptable for him to put his ideas into practise. Provided that he can convince enough people of his position.
Well I'm saying that it isn't acceptable to put those ideas into practise. So it follows that it isn't acceptable to advocate those ideas, because that could conceivable lead to them being put into practise. It follows, as night follows day, that people must be prevented from advocating certain repugnant notions.
>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.
Cause and effect my dear fellow. You must prevent people causing bad effects. No use trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
>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.
It merely demonstrates that I don't fetishise 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.
So if I ask a million people to murder you, if I passionately and persuasively preach to the world that it is important that you be eliminated from the face of the earth, you would not consider that an injury?
I know I would. If someone went around making speeches and writing books preaching the message that Bill Bartlett of Bracknell was the Devil incarnate and that the problems of the world would be eliminated as soon as he was, I would be scared shitless. And that's only me. Far worse to do that to an entire class of humanity.
So you are talking nonsense. You are fetishising free speech.
>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.
But what if a great many people DO listen? You seem to assume that they won't, but in that case there is no real loss or injury going to be suffered by the banned author in not being able to advocate the idea. So there is no harm done by banning such speech, because no one would have listened anyhow.
I agree that it is unlikely, but I believe it makes sense to assume the worst. The worst case scenario is that millions of people could die and millions more be enslaved and degraded. That is, after all, the logical extension of what racists believe.
It is very dishonest to permit them to argue their case unless we are prepared to let them win their argument. Would you be prepared to let them win the argument? Just because you fetishise "free speech"? Frankly, I'm not. End of story, if they aren't allowed to win the argument, then it is better to be consistent and not permit them to make the argument.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas