One thing though. You said I should only oppose the free speech of fascists, not anyone else who I happen to disagree with.
^^^^^ CB: I said I do. I didn't say you shouldn't. You might have a theory by which something else should be made an exception.
^^^
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: I agree that it more likely than Nazism to come about ( although I'm not sure Bush doesn't get a 100% rating from the KKK) I'd say make the argument. Perhaps based on the long, long history of male chauvinist control of women's bodies, witchhunts and many more historical examples ?
^^^^
> 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: I think what you are saying is correct in that we have to preserve the memory of what happened, so as to prevent it from happening again. I guess I'd use the analogy of "toxic waste". The documentary history of Nazism ( copies of _Mein Kampf_) might kept in special "leadlined" locations, like in a special museum. I'd say eventually, after the end of capitalism, with the threat of anybody taking it up remote, this protocol might be relaxed. Also, the frame somebody puts on their presentation would matter. There would be a jury that decides whether the person is promoting or analyzing a Hitler speech.
> 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.
^^^^^ CB: Yea , well you may be familiar with the doctrine of judicial notice. Somethings Your Honor can take judicial notice of without proof.
Here's some evidence: murdered tens of millions all over Europe from about 1939 to 1945. They sat around in rooms and planned to do it.
Do I really have to prove to you that the Nazis conspired to and did kill tens of millions of people, tens of millions more casualties ?