>political power and hate speech are interlocked. you can't separate them;
>so there's no confusing the issue.
That's my point 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.
I'm not opposed to free speech, I'm for it. But freedoms aren't unlimited, they all entail responsibilities.
>: 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.
The question is, what is free speech and what is incitement to hate and oppress others. Of course that is a question that must be addressed in the same way all laws are.
>: 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?
I don't trust anyone who has power, but I'm not advocating we trust them.
>: 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.
As you say, people make laws. They can change them, so that's no protection in the long run.
>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.
To proscribe incitement to racial hatred and oppression is not to destroy free speech.
>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.
Actually, I'm an optimist. But history forces me to accept that, in certain circumstances, people won't act decently.
>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.
Ouch! ;-) Can I say though that I'm not advocating it be kept shut up in the barn, this notion that I'm opposed to free speech is only your interpretation. I'm suggesting that, like free speech, the horse be kept on a rein.
>you could succeed in making me intensly popular and very rich.
And dead. But perhaps being intensely popular and rich would be enough consolation. ;-)
>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.
>;-)
WAS! I said I WAS very good, I'm as useless as tits on a bull nowadays. You have to keep in practice. The local vermin have taken to mocking me, cats stride about as if they own the place and Kookaburras perch within what should be easy range, laughing out loud. ;-)
>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.
That's what happens when you let your local right wing nut-cases have free speech. If they were taught their place from the beginning, things would never get to this stage. But instead you take them seriously and talk as if the bizarre ideas they espouse are legitimate.
But some ideas aren't legitimate. Humanity has learned that through experience. Racism is one of those illegitimate philosophies.
>which is why ordinary folks, like you and me, need to hang on to all the
>free speech we can.
Yes, your arguments are good. I'm always torn by this, but you have to explain why it is impossible to put any limits on free speech. I don't want the right to advocate racist ideology. There are lots of other repugnant ideas I can tolerate, but not that. I'm not suggesting every unpopular philosophy needs to be proscribed, but some are simply inhuman.
Tell me why we should have to tolerate sickening ideas being openly advocated.
>: 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.
Of course. But obviously the whole point of advocating racist ideologies is to have these ideas enforced by the state.
>: 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.
This argument is very appealing. In normal circumstances letting them open their mouths is the best way to inoculate us against them. But the ideal defense is to eliminate last vestiges of the idea, to stifle it and crush it the second it surfaces. Ideas aren't as easy to wipe out as Smallpox, but they can be made effectively taboo. That's what I want to see, advocates of racism treated the same as advocates of pedophilia and incest. That is, as what they are, people advocating a criminal conspiracy.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas