From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Legal criticism (was: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Keywords: egnilges
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:37:40 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.233908.29218@Princeton.EDU>
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.222845.359@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>
>>>  "Race" is an outdated,
>>>nineteenth-century concept which we should
>>
>>no longer use.
>>
>Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.

History shows that discriminating on the basis of race is bad.  I want
such discrimination not to happen.

>>> use only to redress the
>>>considerable amount of mischief caused by "race."
>>
>>Thereby causing more mischief [sic] in a never-ending cycle.
>
>Doing nothing also causes mischief.  "Benign neglect" has resulted in
>health statistics for the Bronx at Third World levels, and black male
>life expectancy is in decline.

I didn't say "do nothing".  I said "don't base what you do on race".

>(For the last time)

I hope.

> there is no clearcut division between speech, and
>victimizing others using speech, and action, and victimizing others
>through our actions.  You want, it appears, to say that Anita Hill was
>not harmed for telling what seems to be the truth about Clarence
>Thomas.  Not only do I contend that she was harmed, I find a double
>standard at work.  Thomas and Judge Posner are treated as beyond
>criticism;

I've seen you criticizing them.  I've seen lots of criticism of
Thomas; less of Posner, but I haven't heard about anybody prevented
from critizing either of them.

> although the one probably said "who put the pubic hair in my
>coke can" and the other published a racist statement concerning Othello,
>Shakespeare's  "black miscegenator", people with the temerity to point
>this out are subject to character assasination.

Everybody is subject to character assassination.  It's called freedom
of speech.

>  I do not class myself
>with Anita Hill for I don't know if I have her courage.  Yet I do note a
>tendency to suck up to power in those who would allow Posner/Thomas to
>say anything they please, and make the penalty for criticizing either
>individual a form of death by flamage.

One gilley.

>There seems to be a presumption on your part that a victim of speech is
>never harmed and indeed the "urban legend" is that such people profit by
>it.  During a recent discussion here on the net concerning the
>victimization of Kim Pring by Hustler Magazine in 1978, posters were
>generally unaware that Pring was completely unable to find a job owing
>to Hustler's characterization of her, and that Pring had to join the
>Army as a result.  

Considering how many people here had never heard of Pring or the
Hustler Magazine article, I find it hard to believe that every
possible employer had so heard.

>No, Hill was not "murdered" (was that a threat?)

No, it was a sarcastic comment in response to your saying "... are to
be destroyed without restraint (as was Anita Hill)."  I questioned the
amount of "destruction" she had undergone.  Aside from people saying
nasty things about her, what has happened?

>  Speech, however, is
>often the way in which people in our society are kept in line and
>abusive speech is reserved for the Anita Hills, whereas it is the
>Posners and the Thomases that need to be curbed.

In our society, abusive speech is permitted to everybody and therefore
can be applied to anybody.  I've seen large amounts of abusive speech
about Thomas and Hill; probably more about Thomas.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal