> On a separate note, I hate to be an old Leninist authoritarian, but isn't
> "freedom of speech" an interesting phrase? It's a logocentric fallacy,
> since what we're talking about is an entirely different mode of
> expression. It sort of occludes the fact that we're talking about a kind
> of action which has ramifications beyond who hears what. At any rate, no
> freedom is absolute and actions which harm others are generally
> prohibited. Political expression is conative, has to be, and racist
> expression ought to be banned as it is likely to cause injury to those
> targeted, in my view.
And how do you define "racist expression"? Richard Pryor saying "n-word"? Or Lenny Bruce saying "n-word"? In the realm of humor, racist speech has been often used, not always well or effectively, to blunt, undermine, mock, or even explain the roots and absurdity of its original meaning. And do we go back to "Huckleberry Finn" and revise N-word Jim to African-American Jim? I used to rhetorically ask this back in the day, and (almost always white) rads would say, without a trace of irony, "Yes."
It's one thing for someone to simply shout or type a racist epithet, and even then I tend to side with the libertarians. But when the banners attempt to erase words from the language regardless of context or intent, then it's thesaurus throwin' time.
Dennis