[Jen]

Well, JYAMG, you define an interesting legal point: at what point does free speech (an indivisible right) become hate speech (legally disallowed, I believe). I need to check up on this further (and I will!) but as I have been given to understand it, the right to believe that any group of people is inferior is unassailable, as is the right to express this view publically and discuss it with other people.

Where the line is drawn, I believe, is, is when the speech crosses the line from saying, "I think [minority group A] is inferior" to saying, "I believe [minority group A] is inferior and should all be killed." I think actual incitement to discrimination or violence is illegal -- but it's a fine line.

The bottom line is, if someone advocates things you find repellent, you have the responsibility to tell them so -- but you have the responsibility to respect their right to say it, no matter how personally abhorrent you find it. Because, after all, takling smack about Republicans may be something that the majority of this country finds offensive and anti-patriotic and maybe even believes I shouldn't be allowed to say. But Constitutionally I have the right to say it, and let us knock wood we always do.

[K1NGWARREN]

Free speech does not exist in increments. Do you want it or not?

[Chefelf]

Free speech does not exist in increments. Do you want it or not?

Well... I want it, but only for the things I believe it. Can we just do that?

[civilian_number_two]

Free speech does not exist in increments. Do you want it or not?

That's nonsense. Not all speech should be free. If I live in a society and I pay an organization to govern and police and thereby protect me, I want them to nip that shit in the bud right away. Because if you happen to know the president's itinerary and you happen to give it to someone you know will use the informatoin to kill him, then you should be arrested and shot. You are not free to speak about everything.

"All speech should be free" sounds nice and idealistic and is a good argument for letting libraries hold on to cultural heritage works like Huckleberry Finn and Ten Little Niggers, but it really doesn't stand up to ultimate scrutiny. Some speech, and I stop way short of my exteme example above, should not be free. I also include inciting to riot, open racism by persons paid or subsidized in public funds, and everything George Bush has ever said or felt in his entire life.

[barend]

there's a big difference between disliking the republican party and physically hating black people...

there's a huge difference between getting up and saying "the upper class is opressing the masses and getting rich from our underpaid labour, we deserve more!" and "black people devalue our great white country and are a virus to be wiped out" don't you think?

i think it's quite a clear line when it comes to opinions and warcires...

fuck people who get up and say stupid shit like that. How can they be considered human enough to be considered eligible for human rights!!!
I believe poeple like that should be blugeoned to death the second they open their mouths, but i wouldn't incite anyone to do it, because murder is wrong and you can't kill someone for their opinion... but hatefull agents of chaos and destruction need to be silenced...

i mean why is it okay for groups to ban books for sexual content but not ban books that incite racism.... freedom of speech is joke! it's alread misbalanced in the wrong fucking direction...

[barend]

woops, by silenced i don't mean killed BTW.

[Jen]

Barend: So you believe that people who espouse racist principles are less than human and should be "bludgeoned to death" the second they open their mouths? And believe that "hateful agents of chaos and destruction need to be silenced?"

But you don't believe in protecting speech that condemns people for having characteristics or holding beliefs?

I think there is a big difference between my saying that I wish Republicans were permanently out of power, and white supremicists saying that they believe that blacks are a stain on the country, primarily beacuse I agree with the first and disagree with the second. But just because I vehemently disagree with what they say doesn't mean they can't say it. (I don't think anyone would agree that should be allowed to take action or incite people to take action: we are merely talking about the right to hold and express unpopular opinions). As I said before, when confronted with opinions that one disagrees with, one should remonstrate with the people holding them, argue with them, even seek to change their mind, and call public attention to all the reasons that they are wrong.

But it sets a dangerous precedent to silence the people who hold opinions we don't like.

[barend]

unpopular opinions should have the right to be voiced, i agree... but dislike of those unlike, is not unpopular... that's the problem.

i think genocidal maniacs should not be allowed to incorage others.

as for the blugeoning, i'm saying that they hate a race, but should shut the fuck up and deal. and restrain from hurting those they hate so much.
while i will forward them the same deal and not wipe them out for being morons...

[Rory]

The thing with free speech is its just sort of necessary for a functioning, fun, and happy society. People like presenting their ideas, however wicked retarted or surprisingly compelling such ideas might turn out to be, and if they aren't allowed to, they'll probably get sort of sad. So, as long as those ideas dont particularly hurt anyone, theres nothing wrong with them. I guess some people might might offended, but really, those people are sort of silly. And if we tried to appease the vast minority of silly people, that would piss off the vast majority of non silly people. Better, I say, to teach the silly people NOT to be offended by advocating free speech, then to bend our wills to their half hearted whims.

Now, of course, certain types of speech are quite offensive to even the most non silly among us. Direct verbal abuse, harrassment, telling Evil Joe the Presidents PIN number, etc. are probably damaging and hurtful enough that they shouldnt be allowed. So, there you are.

[Ninja Duck]

So, we've agreed that these people are morons. In that case, what are they doing at a university? Aren't people at universities supposed to be... smart?

Rory: How do we teach silly people not to tolerate direct verbal abuse, but not to be offended by, say, a newspaper article that mentions someone is black? I don't think it can be done.

[Rory]

By simple operant conditioning, of course. If it works for pidgeons it will work for them. (sort of)

[A Link to the Past]

Oh, shush. I can say whatever I want about anyone I want unless it somehow harms them, either through slander/libel or inciting violence. Freedom for none or freedom for all, dä?

[civilian_number_two]

All right, since we're bumping old threads: If a fraternity were to throw a party, and had a big banner hanging out on their lawn that read "Virgins welcome: we will suck your nipples bloody," the fraternity would be censured for it. Note: it is a phrase that is neither an incitement to violence nor a specific threat, and it is perfectly likely; I have seen such an open invitation on the lawn of a fraternity. I don't remember a lot of feminists jumping up and defending their right to free speech.

So really, do we have the right to say anything? If those guys can get yelled at for that, then can't we jump on the KKK for being assholes and accusing the government of making unfair concessions to black people? Come on, we're not a collective of philosophical idealists; we're a society, and as such we need rules. Not all speech is nor should be free.

[A Link to the Past]

It's that kind of foolish argument I can't stand. People clamor for others to have their speech rights revoked, but if it ever happened to them, they would ***** about the system. Censorship is ass. I don't agree with the KKK (and think they're self-righteous assholes), but having speech rights revoked is not the way to go. The best way to go would be to make the formation of their group illegal. NAMBLA hasn't been made illegal, because they haven't committed any acts of illegality as a group. The KKK has. That's the best way to go I'll tell you what.

[Ninja Duck]

Make the KKK illegal? And violate their freedom of assembly? What makes your impingement of the 1st Amendment (of the US Constitution) any better than ours?