Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.censorship,misc.legal
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:55:42 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Nilges
	<1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu>

>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.
>

A doctor can only be barred from mentioning abortion if he has accepted
federal funding under a special title designated solely for pre natal
care.  The choice of accepting that money implies a contract in which
the doctor agrees to not talk about abortion in return for the funding. 
If a clinic or physician wishes to discuss abortion, there are other
funing titles that allow it, and those are what should be sought.

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

It is explicitly illegal to fire someone for whistleblowing.  Any person
who does so, and is found guilty in court, will be forced to pay all
back wages plus large penalties and damages.  This is akin to murder. 
The law specifically outlaws murder.  If someone does it and is found
guilty, then they face a possible death penalty, and almost certainly
life in prison without parole.  The law cannot stop someone from
breaking the law.  It can punish those who do, and compensate the
victims.

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

Treason is specifically outlawed in the Constitution.  Those who
practice it must face the consequences.

>and so on.
>
>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.
>

Actions may be screened.  Language cannot.  The only cases where
language is illegal is when it is libelous (and thereby infringes the
legal rights of another), Seditious (and thereby treasonous), or creates
a clear and present threat (which also infringes upon others rights). 
Any speech that does not fall within these categories is allowed by the
Constitution.  Period.  That includes what is commonly referred to as
"hate speech".

>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. 
>

"My freedom to swing ends where your nose begins".  You don't exercise
your rights in a vacuum.  You have to take into account the rights of
other people around you.  When a conflict between speech and other
rights occurs, then the courts have to decide which right takes
precedence.  Clearly, freedom cannot be all or nothing as applied to
society.  And it was not meant so by the framers.

>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.  
>

Consider this instead.  If the government has the right to decide any
form of speech is banned, based solely on the content of that speech,
what stops the government from banning anything it finds distasteful? 
Nothing.  Only a ban on banning based on content can prevent the
government from stopping the free exchange of ideas for its own ends.

>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.  

If rascist propaganda causes an immediate harmful reaction, then it
creates a clear and present danger, and therefore, is not protected.  If
it does not cause an immediate reaction, then there is no proof that the
speech was the cause of the action.  Effectively, anything could have
been the cause of such actions, including random actions.  Without such
protections, any speech could be arbitrarily banned by the government as
being "dangerous".  this is the first action on the road to
totalitarianism.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct