Arlo I could answer all of your points but I think it would lead us farther astray. Thanks for your input though. Your examples are interesting and mostly valid.
There are different classes of expression. We can take the view that every event in the universe is an expression of some sort. For the purposes of our discussion we can limit ourselves to some basic classes: 1 - Speech: as in talking or someone giving a speech or recital, etc. 2 - Writing: Mein Kampf, the Koran, newspaper, anything you like. 3 - Action: Demonstrations, rallies, marchs, etc. 4 - How-to: Anarchist cookbook, nuclear secrets, dangerous technology, military publications, etc. There are many other classes but I think we can stick to classes 1 - 3. Class 4 relates to free speech but it does not necessarily relate to "hate speech", which is the general thread here. It would seem that class 4 material is sought out by individuals in order to better "express" pre-existing ideations, hateful or not. For the purposes of this discussion and simplicity let's call classes 1 - 3 "speech". Perhaps you can add other relevant classes. We will include them as "speech". ~ I hope you agree that speech that is offensive, ugly, provocative, or troubling in some way should not be banned. This would include Klan marches, mein kampf, "black power" rallies, and so on. Free speech. If we eliminate this type of speech from the definition of "hate speech", in other words the ugly stuff, then it seems that we are left with "speech that incites violence", or something like that. If you can agree with this logic in general then I wonder how you might define "incites violence". Who is responsible for the violence? If David Duke gives a speech at Berkeley is he responsible for the students who are "incited" to vandalize the administrative offices? Obviously the violence almost never comes from the speaker. What is the mechanism for the "incitement". Who or what is really responsible? Can we narrow this down? ________________________________ From: ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:47:18 AM Subject: Re: [MD] An Observation From An Outsider [MK] You on the other hand have your own Bogus-mans: KKK, Nazis, bomb tossing crazies, to name a few. The Red Herring Boys. [Arlo] The "speech" in the example of posters depicting Jews as rats is a fair example of what should constitute "free speech". Was it harmful? Did it "incite violence"? Should similar posters today be censored? Nazism was not a point I made at all, my reference was only in regard to the anti-Semitic speech that preceded the Holocaust. The "Anarchist's Cookbook" is a book that finds itself in court frequently, I would think concrete examples from the real world would be important in this discussion. [MK] Control through Fear is one, and you use it well ( see above ). Admit it. [Arlo] The "control through fear" of Orwell involved the State declaring a "Great Enemy", punishing anyone who dared to speak against the State's "war" against this enemy, and kept the citizenry in check through constant news programs placing this "enemy" just over the hill. In this sense, Orwell's vision has come true. From the introduction to "The Power of Nightmare" (BBC). "In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this. But their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered to their people. Those dreams failed. And today, people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand." [MK] It has yet to be "legally" proven that Wilders incites violence. Therefore your question is moot, sir. [Arlo] Has it been "legally" proven that the Koran incites violence? Do you side with Wilders that it should be outlawed on that charge? [MK] His position on the works of Hitler and Allah and free speech in general are reasonable. Google. Not an Orwellian Statist. [Arlo] Reasonable? How so? Please explain this. Do you think laws outlawing "Mein Kampf" are "reasonable"? Do you think his position on outlawing the Koran is "reasonable"? [MK] But the main theme of 1984 is control of populace through control of language, words. As far as I remember. [Arlo] And keep in mind that newspeak is not limited to "leftists", as some would claim. Examples such as "The Patriot Act" stand as glorious examples to Orwell's vision. [MK] Is declaring a subset of all possible expressions off limits and punishable by law not Orwellian? Am I really fear mongering? [Arlo] As I said, I think society has a reasonable right to become involved when the speech can be shown to incite violence against its citizens. This applies to both Muslims and Wilder, to anti-Semitic posters and books showing dummies how to build powerful bombs, to rallies by the KKK and the Black Panthers. I'd say, of course, its better to err on the side of freedom when there is doubt, but these lines are difficult to assess... which is why we have courts. [MK] I believe you agree with me in general. You stated as much. [Arlo] I don't know what your position is. It seemed to be a "never ban any speech no matter what" stance that has morphed into support for banning the Koran, Muslim culture and "Mein Kampf". [MK] But I am waiting for you to admit that "hate speech" is a load of b.s. [Arlo] Don't hold your breath. 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/
