[lbo-talk] Link to Muhammed cartoons

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

> CB: You would be mistaken. The U.S. capitalist system of 
> censorship is much more efficient and repressive than the 
> system the commisars had. Not only that, at least the 
> commissars censored stuff, like racism , that should be 
> censored, whereas the U.S. censors censor progressive ideas 
> to prevent the U.S. working class gaining the consciousness 
> to do what the whole world needs done in the U.S. And censors 
> of the type you describe above are not kept out of the halls 
> of power in the U.S., because the main halls of power in the 
> U.S. are in private corporations.  They just aren't called 
> "commisars".  

I disagree with this assessment. I do not think that there is any
system-wide censorship in the US, albeit of course individuals outlets may
be selective in what they print.  That holds for The Nations as well as for
the WSJ.  The fact remains that virtually anything - no matter how
outrageous - can be published in this country (albeit not by every outlet),
or for that matter televised via community access TV.  If cretin types of
messages seem to be underrepresented, this has something to do with
popularity of these messages rather than their censorship.  Let's face it
Charles,  the views posted to this list, as well most progressive  views,
even though expressed by respectable figures like Kucinich (who btw would be
considered center-left in Europe), are not very popular here - as
demonstrated by the very low voter support for progressive candidates, or
low circulation of the progressive magazines and publications.  


> CB; Senders of ambiguous or double meaning messages are 
> usually fully aware of the ambiguity of their message. The 
> value of the ambiguous messages is not so great that their 
> loss demands passing the unambiguously messages.

May be, may be not.  But even if so, what is wrong with using a little shock
value to get the message across.  I believe that most people on this list
are supportive of the idea if "our" thugs do this, no?  


> 
> My position would be outlaw fascistic racist speech , not all 
> racist speech.
> Advocacy of fascistic racism should be outlawed, like the 
> French and Canadian commissars do. 

I think I can agree with your intent, albeit I think your formulation tends
to confuse speech and action or perhaps intent.  A speech can be used
exclusively to express an idea, or to incite to action (intolerance,
violence, etc.).  It is the latter that should be banned.  Thus, if someone
expresses fascist ideas without malicious intent, that is ok, but if someone
sends an otherwise "respectable" cultural message (say, playing "Die
Valkure" on the radio) to entice people to violent actions against their
neighbors, that should be banned and punishable by law.  I think it is the
"mens rea" not the actual or perceived contents of a message that matters.

Wojtek