Good point on Wilders and the Koran. I don't know how serious he actually is on this, but maybe he is just turning the Muslim's righteousness around, with regard to the cartoons and anti-islam opinions in general, to show them that it works both ways. On the other hand, he must support a ban on Mein Kampf. Tactics. Politics. This is Europe we are speaking of after all.
As far as the KKK, the various Muslim brotherhoods, the JDL, and ( all the rest ), the constitution applies and so does basic criminal law. We might say that there exists a line between thought and action, and that such a line is never easy to define. Fair enough. But there is a concept in law called conspiracy. Conspiracy is of course just thought, planning things out, agreeing to break the law, etc. Action is not necessary to prove conspiracy. This might be your "line that precedes acts". Hanging a "negro" in effigy represents a certain violent sentiment, but does it represent conspiracy? It physically hurts no one. Is it a codified symbol, a sort of "green light" for impending violence? Is the conspiracy ongoing, unspoken, a priori, so to speak? More lines to draw... The purpose of propaganda is to motivate people. Therefore I would expect the rat posters to have some negative impact. This just point us back to "the line". Your Anarchist Cookbook example is interesting for obvious reasons. Is some information too dangerous to know? Nuclear technology? certainly. How to make homemade C-4 out of your belly button lint? Maybe. The list goes on... How about the Declaration of Independence. Dangerous stuff. My opinion is that if there is no conspiracy and no illegal action, then leave it be. But control is controlled by it's need to control*. And it's getting out of control. Low quality. Better put Orwell on your summer reading list. * AH POOK ________________________________ From: Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:39:44 PM Subject: Re: [MD] An Observation From An Outsider [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/ 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/
