From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Nilges
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:47:55 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu> by hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain):

> In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
> free speech exist in the US at all?  And if it is not consistent on all 
> levels then it does not exist.  I will add that it is interesting how many 
> people choose to defend the "racists" right to free speech when:
> 
> 1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.

They cannot do so and receive MONEY from the government.  If they wish to do so
they can forego the money.  I think it's a stupid policy, but not 
unconstitutional censorship.

> 2.  Corporate Whistleblowers generally lose their jobs after spilling the beans.

There are often legal remedies.  Once again, they are not prohibited by LAW
from making their disclosures.  Nilges's nihilism aside, there IS a difference
between state and private action.

> 3.  Speech to overthrow the government is punnishable(sp).  

When's the last time it was punished?  In fact it is PROTECTED.  Have you 
forgotten the recent flag burning case?  Ifanti-government speech were
prohibited, Tom Metzger and Bob Avakian would be sharing a cell.

> and so on.

I hope your "and so on" is more accurate.  Try again.

> Why defend speech that spreads a hatred when one can talk about cases like the 
> above? Generally, all actions are pretty well screened in this country 
> before being allowed, and racism should be no different.

Very simply because the cases that you cite are largely spurious.

> Lets face it, there is no such thing as "free speech" in this country.  One 
> cannot argue that "some" speech is free since freedom means all or nothing. 

Given the invalidity of your supporting evidence, your conclusion here is 
tenuous at best.

> Considering the above, is it worth defending the speech of the racist?  If the
> government is allowed some subjective leeway as to what is free and what is 
> not free speech, then consider this:  Does racist propoganda ultimately
> stop at "speech" or does it have "physical" effects in the short/medium/long
> run?  That should be a concern when deciding on what is "speech" and what is 
> not.  

It's always worth it to defend the RIGHT of speech of a racist, a communist, or
a simple would be tyrant like Nilges.  When you fail to do so, you endanger 
your own rights.

> Using the above logic, I do not consider racist propoganda to be considered
> as "speech."  Racist propoganda drives some people to physically, 
> economically and emotionally hurt others (I'm also not an Al Sharpton or
> Farakhan fan!).  Should it be punnished accordingly?
> That ofcourse is a different issue.  

Since it was based on fallacies, your logic... isn't.  The potential harm of
government censorship far outweighs that of the prattling of a Viktora or a
Nilges.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Xref: sparky misc.legal:16531 alt.politics.correct:5162 alt.censorship:7189