General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Censorship of hate speech is an unconditional surrender to hate. [View all]ellennelle
(614 posts)i certainly agree with most if not all your points. however, in your insistence that argument will win the day, you assume that rational argument removes the need for limits on free speech. this assumption is based on the further assumption that all parties involved are directed and moved by rational logic.
would that this were true. not even the most logical among us can always agree on what is rational and logical. just check out the recent email debate between chomsky and sam harris. (though most would agree sam made a most irrational ass of himself.)
that said, i have to make sure you do understand that there do in fact exist limits to free speech, right? we can't wantonly slander or defraud, and we can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire.
these actions have pernicious intent, employing lies to achieve nefarious goals.
i would submit - just for the sake of argument - that open hate speech falls into this category.
consider the case of julius striecher, the only non-official, non-military nazi to be hanged at nuremberg. his crime? here is his condemnation by the jurists when he was sentenced to hang:
to my mind, they make a powerful point, which if generalized, would not only indict geller, but fox news and the whole of murdoch's propaganda enterprise, limpboy, savage, coulter, hannity, and all the rest of them. how else, for example, could the bulk of our populace, and all but a handful or our congress, be so "incited" as to engage in the "active persecution" of all muslims after 9/11, to the point of invading two sovereign nations and occupying their land, oppressing their peoples?
how can we feel so incensed at the immorality of the rightwing propaganda machine while defending any and everything that comes out of their mouths? we really cannot have it both ways. not because we must adhere to the letter and death the enlightenment principle of free speech, but because we must also adhere to the even higher enlightenment principle of requiring the greater good for all in each and every action. and we must do this rationally; when faced with the facts of what happens when "free speech" without constraints runs amok (e.g., swindling and stampedes and genocide, oh my!), we are called upon to make judgments in the interest of the greater good of all.
merely having the belief that someone is evil and/or dangerous is not enough for their free speech to be infringed, nor would it be for them to have discussions and even public display of these beliefs. but, that speech must also be understood as having no iniquitous intent or goal for the greater good of all. when one's belief targets an identified group (i.e., race, color, gender, creed, etc.) for suppression or attack or even eradication, their public speech about it is subject to the question of whether or not it serves the greater good. i submit that, at that point - at that clear, bright line - it does not. so, if this criterion of the greater good is not met, we must as a society at least consider that to be a limit that cannot be crossed, just as we set the limits for fraud, slander, and shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
this is where we can see the difference between protecting the free speech of pam geller as opposed to protecting the free speech of charlie hebdo; geller targets muslims, with persecutory language, while charlie hebdo is an equal opportunity satire machine. for them, everyone is fair game. which is as it should be; we need the power of parody and the court jester to throw our contradictions back in our collective face. it offers critical perspective. geller and her ilk, on the other hand, have no such intention, no goal but to single out a targeted group and tar them with the broad brush of "other," with hate and incitement.
as a cautionary aside, i would add that the 99% must remember to apply these fine distinctions when we target the 1%. so far, as long as we are careful to maintain the calls for the end of social structures that support the elite oligarchy in the name of the greater good (which seems so - rationally - obvious), we remain on good footing. if we target the crimes that are committed, within the framework of justice for all, and avoid swooping up the innocent simply because they are "privileged," then we have a prayer of maintaining civility. if we ever even tilt in the general direction of the mob rule that exploded in the french revolution with the guillotine and arbitrary imprisonments, we are doomed by our own judgment. better to lean hard into the reconciliation direction of south africa, imho.
and yes, these are all moral judgments; what could be more steeped in the enlightenment than that? we are called upon as individuals to make these judgments every day, and we ignore them at our peril. should we abandon this ethic at the social, public level?