From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:49:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.162306.10470@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>So how about it? How can you hold that St. Paul city ordinance should
>be binding while a U.S. constitutional amendment should not?

The city ordinance had a clear cut application to Viktora's crime
whereas a Constitutional amendment as broad as the First Amendment did
NOT have so clear an application.  In the nineteenth century, racist
judges applied to 14th amendment so as to give corporations all sorts of
rights to oppress labor whereas in the 20th century that amendment has
been restored to its original purpose of protecting the civil rights of
non-fictional persons.  Similarly, prior to the 1960s free speech was
interpreted narrowly whereas since that time it has undergone an
evolution from protecting literary works deserving of protection to
protecting punks undeserving of protection.  

In short, I am a consistent liberal interpreter of the Constitution.  I
neither think of it as an absolutely deciding document such that NO
other input is required, nor as a document allowing of a sort of
nihilistic free play in the manner of the (fictional) misunderstood
"deconstructionist" philosopher.  I think that the justices of the 19th
century were WRONG in liberally interpreting the corporation to be a
legal person and misapplying Reconstruction protections for emancipated
slaves to rapacious corporations, but I don't think they were wrong
because they stretched the Constitution; I think they were wrong because
they made it possible for big corporations to oppress workers.  I think
that the justices who interpreted freedom of speech to enable people to
read Henry Miller were right, whereas I think that the justices who
today apply the same protection to illiterate punks are wrong.

And of course the cry goes up, who lets YOU decide?  This cry, more
worthy of slaves than of free people, dully astonished that one of their
number should have an opinion, is readily answered; nobody.  The Supreme
Court, stacked by one of the most contemptible and evil men of modern
times (Bush), has decided.  But I'll be God damned if I express any sort
of tacit assent. 

>cmk>make any rule that a private organization can make, do you really
>cmk>believe this? Many private organizations ban blacks, gays, Jews,
>cmk>atheists, women, etc. Should a city thus be able to ban, say, blacks?
>cmk>After all if some city residents don't like it, they can move.
>
>en>Uh, it happens to be illegal in many cases, and immoral in all cases,
>en>for those "private" organizations to ban the groups you mention.
>
>As for legality:
>
>Many religious groups exclude nonmembers, it is legal. The Boy Scouts
>of Americas exclude gays and atheists, it is legal (at least in most
>states). Many country clubs exclude women, and KKK excludes blacks, it
>is legal, etc. etc.)

I take it that you approve of this situation in spite of the ongoing
legal challenges to these immoral exclusions (lawsuits against Scouting
for excluding gays and athiests, lawsuits against the Klan, Sally Frank
'80's lawsuit against Princeton's all-male eating clubs, etc.)  I don't,
and I point to your very knowledge of these situations as evidence of
its growing illegality.  Point is that NEITHER government nor private
groups gaining government benefits can legally exclude, and that it is
furthermore immoral for the MOST private groups, those not receiving
government money, to exclude!  What would YOU have thought had my
Outward Bound patrol said at the outset that (blacks, women, etc) could
not join?  To me, it is incoherent to say "it's wrong, but they gotta
right."  There is no right to committ a wrong (that's a tautology,
dammitall).  The fact that libertarians and other crypto racists end up
defending the (logically self-contradictory) right to commit wrong is
one more point against them!

In short, you make a bogus equivalence between passing a hate speech
"law" in an Outward Bound patrol and excluding members based on race.
The difference is that


     THERE IS NEVER A RIGHT TO COMMIT A MORAL WRONG


We had, therefore, a right to pass a "hate speech" law but none to
exclude blacks.  Of course, the lax libertarianism so prelevant on the
net is going to object, and object strongly, to my premise that "there
is never a right to do wrong."  This merely shows how self-contradictory
this libertarianism really is!

Of course, I'll be flamed from Hell to Huddersfield for saying (again,
let's say it again)


     THERE IS NEVER A RIGHT TO COMMIT A MORAL WRONG


I will be (again) a Nazi Space Monster from the Planet Zork (aiee!).
Too bad; for far from being a ground for intolerance, the principle
TINARTCAMW can easily recognize that it's wrong to be intolerant, and to
believe that my personal vision is right for all, witholding from me the
right to commit the wrong of intolerance.  Whereas libertarianism
sanctions ANY wrong, including, of course, intolerance.
>
>Moreoever, by your reasoning why shouldn't it be legal? You say that
>if a group wants to impose restrictions on its members it should be
>able to.

Nope, only morally correct restrictions.

>
>As for morality:
>
>You think groups should only be allowed to impose *moral*
>restrictions. Who is to decide what is moral and what is immoral?  You
>can't let it be the group; many already choose immoral restrictions.
>It can't be the authorities (by your reasoning) since they are just
>agents of another group. It can't be me because I think speech
>restrictions covering whole cities are immoral. I guess it has to be
>you. No thanks.

Your thinking is overly binary.  If (for example) I disapprove of
abortion but my community allows it, I have a three-way choice, not a
two-way choice.  I can allow my community to go ahead and permit
abortion, or I can engage in all sorts of Operation Rescue extremism.
This is the two-way, binary, vision, which (I submit) causes much
heartache, whether at women's health clinics, or in Bosnia.

But if I actively prize tolerance and even a sort of self-doubt (not the
corrosive skepticism, so popular nowadays, that insults and questions
everyone's views except one's own; instead the self-doubt that says that
if good people are on the other side of an issue, then I may be wrong),
then my tolerance may "trump" (supersede) my dislike of abortion and I
may elect to instead work peacefully and democratically for change!

In short, I may actively prize democracy, even over the potential lives
of the unborn.  This is a complicated thought.  I make no apologies.
And in answer to your question, the group, using democratic discussion
and debate, should make the decision.  I would point out to you that no
one in my Outward Bound patrol saw fit to defend freedom of speech to
the extent of defending idiotic statements re the safety of Oakland.
This indicates the bogosity of freedom of speech as applied to hate
crimes.


Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Princeton University
Keywords: