"www.leninology. blogspot.com" wrote:
>
> I mean, supposing we are actually
> concerned about the victims of racism and not the amour propre of some
> leftists who prefer to present their attachment to bourgeois democracy as a
> sort of libertarianism, then we could consider supporting such measures as
> is likely to prevent the spread of racist violence. Demonstrating against
> the racists wherever they try to organise would be a good start: it would be
> authoritarian too.
The free speech of racists ought to be suppressed -- but probably not by state action. I was personally offended by W posting that url: it nauseated me. He ought to be sent to coventry by all decent men & women.
The problem with state action is that it is almost always too blunt and undiscriminating -- and in the case of growingly repressive states such as the US & UK repression will be more apt to land on the victims than on the perpetrators of racism. Discussion of it also always allows meatheads to assume that a racist remark is intrinsic to the words rather than to the object of the remarks. There is no such thing as anti-white racism, but any law against racist language will be used to punish the non-crime of alleged "anti-white racism."
Carrol