From: deatz@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Gregory H Deatz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: What about "free" speech
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:24:02 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I posted a few articles regarding free speech when we were discussing
Mr. Godfrey, etc... I happened to mention that it was wrong to take
away his internet account because he was exercising his free speech.

Several people who read this newsgroup have responded to my article,
as well as others, refuting the possible suggestion that Godfrey
shouldn't have had his account taken away.

I'm going to go into a larger realm now because I think some people
are a little mistaken on the notion of free speech.

What does "free speech" mean exactly? It means FREE SPEECH. If I have
something, possibly offensive, to say, I don't expect to be
prosecuted/persecuted for it. Yet this is exactly what is happening in
Germany. The fact that Germany is forbidding the use of free speech
when it comes to talking "good" about racism, especially Nazism, I
wonder what it is they are trying to prove.

When something is made legal by a country/state or permitted by a
country/state, it does NOT imply that the country is condoning the
action which it legalizes or permits.

In the USA (don't get me wrong, we have problems of our own, but take
this with a grain of salt), it is quite allowable for EVERYONE to say
what they feel and to have meetings regarding their feelings. This
allowance is protected by the law. BUT, this is no way condones the
meetings of the KKK. KKK meetings are likely not constructive and are
probably just rap-sessions where they get together and talk about how
much they hate @#$% (explitives deleted). But don't you think that it
would be an intensely gross act by our government to disallow these
people from meeting and saying how they feel.

The one thing our government does NOT allow is the use of violence to
express one's opinion. No matter what your position is on an issue, if
you use violence to get your point across, you will be punished. On
the whole, (we have a grotesque share of the corrupt politicians), we
have proven to the world that a country can exist for over 200 years
without killing free speech.

Now, don't bring in the issue of slavery or indian massacre, but this
has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Like I said, the USA
has made enormous mistakes in the past, mistakes for which they are
paying right now, and will into the future.

My final point is that stifling someone's speech is fundamentally
wrong, when a country's consitution (as Germany's) supposedly protects
that right. Germany would be no better nor worse off if they chose to
allow the racists be public.

So, killing speech clearly shows condemnation of that particular
speech. ( But this is fundamentally bad) And, allowing all types of
speech does not condone the use of particular types (Fundamentally
good).

If you have any responses, don't send them to me. Put them on the
newsgroup. My e-mail is for more important things. This is play.

SEE YA
-- 
Gregory Deatz (All e-mail forwarded to deatz@gandalf.rutgers.edu)
bitnet account: deatz@cancer

RPO 5586 PO Box 5063 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063
Phone:	(908) 220-9479