From: elton@sybase.com (Elton Wildermuth)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re:  re: Official Compuserve Policy ... )Elton Wildermuth(
Date: 25 Sep 92 23:34:29 GMT
Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric, Edwin Meese Cabal

In article <26122@castle.ed.ac.uk> loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
>In article <23516@sybase.sybase.com > [Elton said]:
> >shoulda been more careful who they attacked, nicht wahr?  But I don't
> >count words as real physical harm unless those words are likely to lead
> >to subsequent physical attacks.
>
>	I consider words that are designed to cause you to lose your livelihood
>or your freedom as attacks. [...] There seems to be a problem here. I support
>free speech, but I feel uneasy about supporting the use of words as weapons. 
>For example "Non christians cannot be American Citizens" *George Bush, or 
>"Jews are not human" or "Blacks don;t deserve the vote". These are all
>weapon words, and are as dangerous as a gun fired recklessly. 

First point:  I don't "support the use of words as weapons", except in the
very bardic sense of using them to ridicule an opponent.  My point is, and
has always been, that I do NOT support _preventing_ them from being used as
weapons by those whose moral sense differs from my own.  Being against
controls is not the same as being in favor of indiscriminate action.

Now.  Of your examples, the first and third require some form of government
intervention in order to be meaningful.  Bush scares me because he is in a
unique position, as the putative head of 1/3 of my government, to entrench
his narrow-minded bigotry in law.  By my lights, he or anyone else who attempts
to _act_ on any of the idiocy he spouts is guilty of a serious crime.

	[By the bye, the Bush quote (paraphrased) was, "I don't know that 
	 atheists can be considered patriots, or even citizens.  This is one
	 nation under God."  Quoted in _Reason_ magazine.]

Your second example is a bit different, since all it needs is to incite some
random group of bystanders to action in order to harm someone.  However, I'm
still not going to advocate preventing someone from SAYING it -- only from
DOING something about it.  There, words have spilled over into action; and
when that happens, the rules change.  I do support the right to defend one's
self from attack, whether the attack comes from one's own government or from
a random citizen on the street.  (In fact, I'm more vehement than that -- I
support the right to shoot back first.  We'd all be more polite to one another
if impoliteness might be hazardous to our health.)

Here, as I said before, the gauge of harm is whether words are likely to lead
to physical attack.  No body of law can possibly gauge that, any more than a
traffic light can tell whether it's really safe for you to cross the street.

>	Words have consequences. Free speech, as a right, should, in a
>civilised society entail the duty to use language as carefully as a loaded
>gun.

Oh, absolutely agreed!  However, I have a problem with the translation from
"should" to "must" -- how much evil has been perpetrated in our own society
by those who can't tell the difference?  I will continue to argue for "should"
and against "must".  The confusion between those terms is what has given us
Political Korrectness [tm] and the corresponding view that everyone in society
except me is the victim of oppression, whether or not they are enlightened
enough to have noticed it yet.  (I'll tell ya, I must be one busy son of a
preacher to have oppressed so many people in only 38 years.)

>	I suspect your tolerance may rapidly fade if you are faced with losing
>your job, partner, or children as a result of a verbal attack.

Hasn't happened so far; and if 5 years of lies and innuendo couldn't do it to
me while I was in the Army, I shouldn't think my attitude will change out here
in corporate America.  (In order to truly experience intolerance, there is no
substitute for military service.  There, merely having a good command of your
native language is sufficient to label you a "queer".  Any reader of newspapers
probably knows how the U.S. military handles "queers"; well, let me assure you
that the _official_ reaction is as nothing compared to the reaction of your
fellow service members.)

We've all heard it said that "a conservative is only a liberal who's been
mugged".  Well, here I am as an example that that ain't necessarily so.
Don't, however, think that I'm particularly tolerant -- I'm one of the most
intolerant brutes you'll ever meet.  But it occurred to me a long time ago
that if I want to be left alone to behave as I please, I probably ought to
allow others to do likewise, so that's the ideal that I spend my time fighting
toward.

			-- Elton