[lbo-talk] A PR disaster: Five views on Pussy Riot's war

[andie_nachgeborenen]

Who we, white man? I support the right of anti-socialists to advocate against socialism. I think the Brandenburg v Ohio principle is roughly right, what should be prohibited is immanent incitement to illegal activity. The SCt's earlier post US v. Dennis cases making abstract advocacy of illegal conduct OK seem right to me. In the 1920s Justice Holmes, a laissez faire social Darwinist in his policy beliefs, said that is the Bolsheviks could persuade the public, they would have won the right to rule. I think if we, whoever we may be, can't persuade people in the face of nonviolent argument, we won't have won the right to rule.

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 23, 2012, at 12:17 PM, "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:


> Every one is searching for some abstract principle that would decide this
> question: it doesn't exist. I defend the right of leftists in the u.s. to
> say anything they want to say anyplace. I defend the right of a regime
> opposed to the U.S. to suppress any speech that threatens that independence.
> The argument has to be political rather than moral or metaphysical. When
> free speech threatens capitalism we defend it. When free speech threatens
> anti-capitalist activity, we don't necessarily defend it. (I state this
> crudely and as stated it is incorrect but it points in the right direction.)
> Ravi is correct that as an abstract principle free speech is mostly a
> libertarian myth.
> 
> Carrol
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:02 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A PR disaster: Five views on Pussy Riot's war
> 
> 
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 12:22 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> 
>> Well, they do have "hate crimes" in Europe, no? It's a hate crime to
> offend/attack a Jewish synagogue, but not a Christian church? 
> 
> I don't like hate crimes laws. If somebody wants to stand on a street corner
> and denounce Jews and/or Judaism, I'd hope that someone kicks the shit out
> of him or her, but it shouldn't be a crime. Damaging a synagogue is a crime,
> and it doesn't need a special designation as a hate crime.
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk