From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:39:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.140218.1497@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Then what is a law?  A magical mystical device that changes the
>innermost thoughts of a society?
>
>"Ah," the bigot will say, "I used to hate this Albanian, but now the
>city council has prohibited anti-Albanian speech, I suddenly feel a
>deep love welling within me."

That's something like what happened in the American south in the 1960s.
Because laws were passed expressing the idea that discrimination was
wrong, bigots did indeed rethink their attitudes, with the result that
the South is significantly less racist than in the Fifties.  Perhaps
you'd rather see the deliberate arming of racial factions and incitement
to hatred, as is being engineered by white racists in South Africa?

I'm calling you on your "tough-mindedness".  It's a mere lack of
imagination.  Like it or not, we are creatures of language and language
is political.  Better a hundred, or a thousand verbal ceasefires in the
war of all against all until such time as we grow up.
>
>>The members of the
>>patrol who were most resistant to Keith's charges of subtle racism went
>>along enthusiastically with the speech restrictions, so the question of
>>enforcement never arose.  
>
>Wait a second -- you said that some of the OB folks were silently against
>the speech restrictions.  Make up your mind, Ed!  Or are you being

Figure it out.  They were initially most resistant but at the end of the
patrol were conforming with enthusiasm.  In other words, a period of
time passed.

>dishonest again, like you were with Posner?  We'll have to revoke your
>Nilgean speech permit -- you know that in the Nilgean universe speech
>rights only come with a three-part balancing test of literacy (such as
>knowing about the "writings of Socrates"), honesty, and p.c. thought
>(such as not praising notable sexists like Henry Miller, or failing
>to condemn the anti-Semitism of those posts you praise).

Little quick on the draw.  You assumed, Ted, that I would not condemn
what you perceived to be Sherheryar's "anti-semitism".  But a few
minutes ago I replied to YOU, saying that you probably are the
anti-semite, at least in Edward Said's sense, for you reasoned from
Sherheryar's Arabic-sounding name and a mild criticism of Wesern media
bias to Sherheryar's anti-semitism.  I said that if Sherheryar believes
that Jews control the media, I disagree, but if he believes that a
Western dollar elite, comprised of scum of all developed nations, sets
the agenda for the middle east, I agree with him.  If Sherheryar replies
with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, he's wrong; if he replies with
quotes from Edward Said, he's IMO write.  Got it straight now?  Good
lad!
>
>>Less than one percent of Outward Bound's
>>students are so resistant as to fail to go along with the patrol's
>>decisions, and the "punishment" (if you must have a "punishment") meted
>>out to these offenders is just removal from the patrol.
>
>How many of the OB students didn't choose to be in OB, knowing in
>advance that they'd be subject to the patrol's decisions?

It's just not an issue.  Prospective students aren't concerned at all
with their freedom of speech, only with physical challenges.

Xref: sparky misc.legal:16588 alt.politics.correct:5175 alt.censorship:7214