From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: RE: PCness: Why does it upset some people?
Keywords: treason Spector Helms hate-speech
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:06:09 GMT


In article <1992Aug13.143941.16426@midway.uchicago.edu> hasn@midway.uchicago.ed
u (Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
[deletions]
>>SH:  Seconded.  And in addition all speech isn't free regardless of the
>first amendment. For eg. treasonous (sp?) speech is illegal.  Also I tend
[deletions]
Treason is very tightly defined: see Article III, Section 3 of the U.S.
Constitution. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying war against them, or, in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid
and comfort."Thus(for example) saying that the U.S.is a NeoNazi dictatorship
or a Luddite matriarchy or a Gaullist-Vegetarian corporate state; or that
every President's been morally debased and mentally deficient; or that Canada
and the FRG have superior health-care systems *do not* constitute treason.
One valid concern against some of what is called "PCness" is its vagueness.
Example: my undergraduate college  banned sexual harassment (no surprise)
and defined "unwelcome emphasis of sexual identity" as a form of sexual
harassment. In other words, if a homosexual couple embrace in public in
the presence of a man who is nauseated by the thought of homosexuality
(that is, thoughts of homosexuality are "unwelcome" to him) then the couple    
is guilty of sexually harassing him -- by definition. Now, of course   
that is *not* the intent ot the people who drafted the definition of           
sexual harassment. Unfortunately, insufficient thought and care went into 
developing an appropriate definition.                                          
          
                                                                               
                                                                               
[deletions]
>that of further dividing it. Some people argue that leftists also display
>such hate towards capitalism and capitalists so it really isn't any different.
>There is a difference.  Leftists don't go around rousing up crowds to go
>kill or beat up capitalists or republicans.  Its this hate element thats
[deletions]

Sometimes leftists do: e.g.,  actress Jessica Lange told
TV Guide magazine that the Senators who interrogated Anita Hill should
be suspended by their testicles, and she mentioned Senator Spector by
name. (Though I cannot cite specific references, Senator Helms was the
object of similarly-violent comments during the NEA funding controversy.)
Without addressing the question of whether left-right or right-left
is more common, oughtn't we to treat/view Lange's statement just as
we treat/view  the propaganda of the Aryan Brotherhood?

As an aside, I recall reading in my old MaGruder government textbook
that for speech to be subversive [legal definition], it had to be
specific, not abstract. In other words, the statements "Revolution can
be beneficial!" and even "The U. S. needs a revolution about now!" are
*not* subversive, but saying to a crowd that a coup d'etat is overdue
*and* that weapons will be provided gratis is subversive. Applying that
same principle to the question of speech that arouses hatred, ought
specific statements (such as statements directed against either Jesse)
to be treated/viewed more severely than abstract statements (such as
statements about "mud races" or "capitalist-fascist oppressors")?

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)