<html><body>
<DIV>Well, under First Amendment jurisprudence f reedom of speech is not absolute (i.e, fighting words, hate speech, publication of private facts about non-public figure etc) The Montana pol's statement probably doesn't qualify as any of the above. What makes racial/ethnic slurs so offensive from elected/appointed officials is that they are supposed to be serving everybody, not just the people that look like them or vote for them. This individual's statement supports the inference that perhaps this Senator isn't very keen on serving the interests of his latino or immigrant constituents. Probably even more significant is the fact that such speech used by a political official can be taken as permission to discriminate and harass by those of his constituents so inclined - it certainly was that way in the American south during the time of Jim Crow. SR </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol@jhu.edu> <BR><BR>> Another GOP Senator, another ethnic slur <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [WS:] This is a rather unimportant aspect of the story. Slur or not, it is <BR>> just speech. We are all for freedom of speech, no? Whether it is offensive <BR>> or not is matter of opinion. I bet that many if not most US citizens find <BR>> what we say on this list offensive. <BR>> <BR>> What IS important in this story is that nativism is a very widely spread <BR>> sentiment in the US and politicians go on a limb to appease it in order to <BR>> gain voter support. This is quite scary. <BR>> <BR>> Wojtek <BR>> <BR>> ___________________________________ <BR>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>