: At 9:47 AM -0700 18/7/04, R wrote:
:
: "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? ;-)
ask a yank.
:
: >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. ;-)
:
to use or not use? ;-)
[snip]
: >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?
:
a "pom" has never said that about me. i have heard "poms" talk about aussies decending from convicts. i've also heard comments from "poms" about the down under folks close relationships with sheep. don't know if this is true of tasmanians. is that your point?
: >: 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.
you mean like calling english immigrants "poms"?
: >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"?
: >
[snip]
: >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.
society isn't governed by laws. it's governed by people. people make laws. laws can be changed.
: 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
based on past results -- which, as the brokers state, is no guarantee of future performance -- you're always going to be dealing with some kind of arrangement of power. human society most naturally tends to set itself up in a pecking order. the larger the society, the stronger the order. it will be a long time before that tendency will be overcome, if at all.
political power and hate speech are interlocked. you can't separate them; so there's no confusing the issue.
: >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
that, my friend, is a matter of opinion. assuming you wish for a better society, you will not get there without free speech. that's reality, not a fetish.
: >: 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.
i generally agree with the latter. yet, you've dodged the issue of who decides what speech is free and what isn't.
: 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.
who sets the limits and how? who do you trust in your country to do this onerous task?
: >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.
one can also deal what you term threats in various ways. not every threat must be countered. one considers the source.
: >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.
Mein Kampf is for sale in most book stores in the US. burning it would make it more popular. and probably make it an underground classic.
the nazis burned books they didn't like. locking people up and burning books is not a good idea for several reasons.
: 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?:
since i believe in free speech, i have no choice but to allow for the possibility that his or her ideas spread. i can't control whether or not his/her ideas spread. what i can do is to counter his/her ideas to decrease the likelihood they will spread. as in dealing with a disease epidemic, one doesn't kill the sick.
it would be reasonable to assume that people would act on ideas they found acceptable, even if such ideas are lunacy in my opinion. should that become a strong possiblity, or should it occur, violent actions are against the law. that's what cops, courts and prisons are made for.
there are risks living in a free society. it's not our responsibility to destroy free speech on the possibility of risk but to do all we can to prevent such risks.
: 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.
allowing him/her to argue a position does not mean i agree with that position. i would have to agree before i would find it acceptable for this imaginary person to put his/her ideas into practice.
whether or not s/he can convince other people is irrelevant in the context you have stated.
: 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.
it does *not* follow. it's not against the law to be crazy or wrong. no matter how many people you can convince that your craziness is reality.
there is no guarantee repugnant ideas will be put into practice merely because someone advocates them. you grossly underestimate the decency, intelligence and character of your fellow human beings.
: >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.
to follow your metaphore, no use keeping the horse in the barn, never allowing it to see the light of day, or run, on the outside chance it will escape.
> 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?
go right ahead. i'd be interested in knowing how you plan to contact a million people.
you could succeed in making me intensly popular and very rich.
: 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.
you can relax, bill. i don't think you will ever be the victim of such slander. besides, you already told the list you are very good with a gun. ;-)
don't look now but it's being done all the time to entire classes of humanity around the world. those who do this are the terrorists the US "war on terrorism" should be dealing with.
: So you are talking nonsense. You are fetishising free speech.:
: 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 feel pretty comfortable that most people aren't interested in listening to someone demonize a race of people on their home ground. there are ample counter demonstrators at KKK rallies, white power demos, and etc.
the group that gets away with demonizing minorities is the US govt. take a look at how US muslims have fared since the "war on terror" was declared by the US govt. it's not the person on the soapbox preaching hate that's the big problem. it's the govt praticing war and preaching hate and the little guy on the soapbox picking up the mantra. as is the usual case, the power elite get the ball rolling.
which is why ordinary folks, like you and me, need to hang on to all the free speech we can.
: 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.
i'm glad we agree. i also agree that we need to take a look at the worst case scenario. but i don't think that scenario is coming from the racists you're referring to. it's coming from a certain rogue state run by people who have a lot to gain by turning other people against one another. these are the ones we need to be careful of killing, enslaving, degrading, and etc., millions more.
: 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
the racists you speak of can't win. they don't have an argument. that's one reason to let them prove it by opening their mouths and using their pens, if they can write.
as i've noted, the ones we need to watch out for are the ones in service to the power elite. which rather makes our argument with one another moot: the power elite will always give its servants free speech but will be glad to take it from us.
R