> I apologize for the "dissertation" , but this is sort of a specialty area of
> mine.
It was one of mine in college as well, but I'm hungover today and I think we've hit a point of "agree to disagree" on a lot of aspects of this debate anyway. One thing though. You said I should only oppose the free speech of fascists, not anyone else who I happen to disagree with. But in some cases the "anyone else" is a lot more likely to achieve their goals than the fascists are. I'll go back to the anti-choicers because they're the most obvious example of this. I am really REALLY opposed to the idea of abortion being illegalised again, so why shouldn't I oppose freedom of speech for abortion prohibitionists? In terms of the possibility of it actually happening, I think it's a much greater threat than the threat of Nazism in the US.
> CB: Actually, I'm kind of appalled at your not thinking that it should be
> banned for that reason (!) I guess I'd say shocked. What exactly do you
> think in gained by the racist speech that it is so important not to prevent
> the killing ?
I don't think anything is necessarily gained by the kind of racist speech we're specifically discussing, but I think if this rule were to be applied in any kind of consistent fashion it would entail the banning of a lot of speech that *would* have some value (historical, literary etc). I mean would you prohibit the publication, even in academic works or films, of Hitler's speeches? If your intention is to censor things that might inspire someone to racist violence you would pretty much have to.
> CB: Why is it that you are against grand statements, assuming for the minute
> that this is a grand statement ?
>
> You don't think that Nazism qualifies for grand "mal" statements ? Do you
> know what the Nazis did ???!!
Um, yeah. Calm down. Whatever the Nazis did, you still have to prove your points instead of merely asserting them.