From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:48:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.155404.12425@natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.215056.4083@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>
>I have no doubt that Keith knows hate speech when he hears it.  The problem
>is that I know hate speech when I hear it and I'm sure you know hate speech
>when you hear it.  I doubt that even the three of us could agree in every
>case.  Who gets to decide what hate speech is?

The fact that we could not agree in EVERY case does not excuse us from
identifying, and possibly outlawing, cases that are well within the area
we all understand to be "hate speech."  The set of statements Keith, you
and I would identify as hateful speech are not completely disjoint and
indeed they contain a preponderance of common statements.

It's ironic that neoconservatives (who decry academics and their fussy
distinctions in other areas of life and politics) should have such high
standards here.  Again: the fact that complete agreement is not possible
does not imply that no law can be made capturing partial agreement.

As an example of the absurdities whites will sink to when they are
attempting not to appear as racists when simultaneously maintaining the
(racist) status quo was given by Keith.  He appeared on the radio to
plug his Everest climb (for which our Outward Bound expedition was
practice) and his Pinnacle Foundation, a nonprofit group set up to
publicise his attempt.  A white woman, hoping to be thought of as clever
and discerning in the sad way of the postmodern crypto-racist, phoned in
to decry Keith's use of Sherpa porters.  As if such porters are slaves,
as if they are not proud of building an economy on their considerable
skill and stamina in the Himalayas!  Keith was infuriated by her
ignorant comment, for it was a classic double bind; if an African American does
NOT climb Everest, then whites think that they cannot do it, whereas if
he DOES climb Everest, he's a reverse racist exploiter of Sherpas!  I
ask you.

Law and the employment relationship have been used to exploit nonwhites
in the past, but the fact of exploitation was not in the law or the
employment relationship.  Therefore, when African Americans use the law,
or employ Sherpa porters, to better their lives nonviolently, why do
they always attract a storm of abuse?  It's already been demonstrated in
this thread that freedom of speech is not an absolute; for most posters,
it must, for example, be checked at the employer's door because (it
appears) that property rights "trump" (supersede) free speech.  The only
coherent statement of the resultant position is:


     "We got rights.  We got property rights, even though the 	
     founding fathers forgot to list them in the Bill of Rights.
     We got the right to carry and use guns.  We got the right to
     free speech.  When rights conflict, normal white guys' rights
     shall trump (supersede) the rights of women, African Americans,
     and other dweeb outgroups as shall be designated."


I'm serious about this.  The black family victimized by Viktora had a
right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which is specially
damaged by racially biased attacks in a way articulated by Keith Ware.
However, the Supreme Court saw fit to balance against this right the
right of a high school dropout to free speech.  

>
>
>The 1st amendment to constitution garauntees freedom of speech.  St Paul, MN
>being part of the U.S. is governed by this constitution.  If you think the
>supreme court is going overboard or that the 1st amendment allows
>unacceptable speech, change it.  Its the law of the land.  If you want to
>change it than work to change it but St. Paul is not free to ignore it.
>
>
>
>-- 
>-chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)


Newsgroups: misc.legal