[MK]
We need these ideas out in the open. We should punish acts and not
thoughts and ideas.
[Arlo]
Mostly, yes. Sometimes, no. In general I have no problem with the KKK
(for example) holding a rally on public grounds. But when they hang a
negro in effigy, when they cross the line from disseminating their
ideas to actively inciting the crowd to commit violence against
blacks or jews, then we must make a "pre-emptive strike" (to use a
Bush term). Admittedly, this is never easy to define exactly, but I
think citizens of country should not be forced to live in a state of
fear because the KKK wants to say it is "free speech" to instigate
violence against them.
Let's take the anti-Jew posters, where Jews were depicted as rats,
that were posted across Germany in the years leading up to the
Holocaust. From a pure "free speech" position, this would be
perfectly fine, the posters aren't committing physical violence
merely expressing "an idea". But don't you think this (as one part of
a campaign of dehumanization) had an impact on violence that was soon
going to hit the Jewish community full-force?
Or take, in another direction, the Anarchist's Cookbook, a book that
describes in building bombs and techniques for committing mass
violence in a "Terrorism for Dummies" sort of walk-through. The book
is just "ideas". But do you want it in the hands of every angry dude
out there? I'm sure you have a crazy dude in your town, someone who
is mostly harmless but on the edge. Do you want him to have a book
that tells his exactly how to build a bomb that could destroy your
office building, or your child's school? At present, as far as I
know, the book is available but regulated (sort of like Grain Alcohol
is in Pennsylvania). And I think that is okay.
So the way I see it, there is a line that precedes "acts" on which
society has every right to intervene. The nature of this intervention
must consider the specifics, and will likely be nuanced to the
context at hand, finding a balance between the free exchanges of
ideas and the instigating violence against other citizens (or people).
[MK]
Would you find Geert Wilders guilty?
[Arlo]
Personally, no. Although I do find some of his words dangerously
close to a call for violence against Muslims. If he wants to
criticize or speak out against a theology, that is his right, if it
involves demonizing or manipulating fear to incite others to commit
acts of violence against innocent people, that's then a different
game. In the same vein, I think Muslims have a right to speak out
against Western ideologies they oppose, but manipulating fear to
incite others to violence should summarily be rejected. Again, these
are not easy lines to draw, and as we err in caution or inaction
we'll get a better view of where that line should be.
Interestingly, I read on Wikipedia here, Wilders is calling for the
Koran to be outlawed. And he supports the banning of Mein Kampf.
Presumably because he feels these ideas "incite violence".
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
