From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,soc.culture.jewish,soc.rights.human,alt.discrimination,alt.society.civil-liberties
Subject: Re: Help stop the KKK
Date: 11 Apr 92 12:29:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Apr11.122901.26868
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93


Our story so far:

(1) In article <1992Apr9.231712.18074@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, 
schectr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (ROBB SCHECTER) said:

> - On University of Cinncinati campus, we have started organizing a
> counter-demonstration.  The general idea is for it to be
> confrontational but not violent.

> - We hope to mass enough people to drown out any speeches, and
> defeat any recruiting efforts the Klan will make.

(2) I posted a reply in which I expressed my interpretation of this:

> "Hi there... we're a group of citizens who are concerned about the
> Klan's negative attitudes towards the civil liberties of others,
> so in order to protest against their attitudes we're going to try
> to deprive them of their rights to freedom of speech."

(3) In article <1992Apr11.060353.101732@cs.cmu.edu>, 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) said:

> The Klan, like everyone else, has a right to free speech.  They do
> not have a right to be heard.

> The counter-protesters also have a right to free speech.  If, by
> exercising their right, they drown out the speech of the Klan, so
> be it.

(4) In article <1992Apr10.160932.8430@meaddata.com>,
paulm@meaddata.com (Paul Marchant) said:

> Well, Bill, I think you have things confused here. If the group
> were interested in depriving them of their right to freedom of
> speech, then they might has said something like: we'll shoot
> anyone who wears a white sheet, phyically block the march,
> violently attack them, etc...

> What they are planning on doing, it counter-demonstrate, i.e.
> exercise their rights to freedom of speech as well. Perhaps you'll
> decide to join the two groups and witness the exercising of rights
> in person.

and (5) in a letter to me, a person whom I won't identify<*> completed

<*>Side note on privacy and netiquette: as I see it, it's kosher to
   post parts of private letters like this, as long as the author's
   identity isn't explicitly given and cannot be derived from the
   quote or the context, and as long as the posted information
   itself doesn't constitute confidential or proprietary data.

my "...going to try to deprive them of their rights to freedom of
speech..." sentence with:

> ...by exercising ours.  Rights are never absolute, and this is
> part of the complexity of rights.  Are you "chilling" their
> freedom of speech by using yours?  Is this "bad"?  An important
> question that applies to both of the previous posters.

Okay, here's my position: The right of freedom of speech includes by
necessary implication several subsidiary rights, without which the
primary right becomes worthless:

 * The right to be heard by an audience which may wish to hear you
   and take the trouble to try to hear you.  (And, of course, the
   corollary right of that audience to hear you.)  This right is
   _not_ dependent upon being able to demonstrate that such an
   audience in fact exists -- it is enough that such a _potential_
   audience always exists.

 * The right to exercise your right of freedom of speech in any
   appropriate public forum, and in any private forum with the
   permission of the owners.  This "appropriateness" can be affected
   by the subject matter of your speech but _not_ by the opinions
   you wish to speak.

 * The right to exercise your right of freedom of speech without
   reasonable fear of reprisal, either at the time of the speech or
   in the future.

There are probably others, but those are the ones which immediately
come to mind.  As I said, without these subsidiary rights, the
primary right of freedom of speech becomes a hollow and worthless
shell.

If the counter-demonstrators attempt to "drown out any speeches,"
they will be violating the Klan members' right to be heard by an
interested audience, if any.  They will be violating the right of
that hypothetical audience to hear the Klan members exercise their
right of freedom of speech.  And if they are sufficiently
aggressive, they may also violate the Klan members' right to
exercise their right of freedom of speech without reasonable fear of
reprisal.

These violations cannot be justified on the grounds that the likely
content of the Klan members' speech will be repugnant to some
people, not even if it can be reasonably demonstrated that the set
of people to whom it would be repugnant constitute a vast majority
of the community, society, nation or culture.

Further, these violations cannot be justified on the grounds that
the likely content of the Klan members' speech will include calls
for the violations of the rights of others, no more than any
hypothetical violations of Mr. Schecter's right of freedom of speech
-- which he exercised when he posted article <1992Apr9.231712.18074-
@ucunix.san.uc.edu> -- can be justified on the grounds that Mr.
Schecter's article called for the violation of the rights of the
Klan members.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d