Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellennelle

(614 posts)
35. the sake of argument
Sat May 9, 2015, 09:08 AM
May 2015

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:

"... For his 25 years of speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as 'Jew-Baiter Number One.' In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution. ... Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity.”[15]
wiki

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?
k&r beam me up scottie May 2015 #1
I oppose criminalizing hate speech, but cali May 2015 #2
Should the RCC/Westboro Baptists be held responsible for anti-lgbt hate crimes? beam me up scottie May 2015 #3
As you know, any mention of Phelps or the Pope sends this crew packing, she will never even try Bluenorthwest May 2015 #33
If a muslim kills someone and says the Koran commanded it would you ban the Koran CBGLuthier May 2015 #4
Every power is double-edged. True Blue Door May 2015 #5
Using your logic they should be rounding up the clerics and other Islamic scholars Lee-Lee May 2015 #27
The people guilty are the people who shot people with guns. Shoulders of Giants May 2015 #38
Imminence. Incitement isn't what many are thinking it is. n/t X_Digger May 2015 #34
Do you consider being free to use a city's bus service to promote hate "censorship"? Scootaloo May 2015 #6
Everyone has an equal right to the public space. True Blue Door May 2015 #7
Do you believe being free to put ads on buses constitutes censorship, or not? Scootaloo May 2015 #8
Only if the limits are imposed by law and are politically selective. True Blue Door May 2015 #10
So no, Gellar is not being censored. Scootaloo May 2015 #11
. beam me up scottie May 2015 #13
No one is being censored there, are they? No Free speech is being infringed, is it? Scootaloo May 2015 #15
I posted a link to an op re: banning hate speech so you'd know what inspired the op. beam me up scottie May 2015 #16
In response to me asking where someone was being censored Scootaloo May 2015 #18
No, they're free to express their extremely wrong-headed ideas about the 1st Amendment. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #20
I didn't alert on that op, did you? beam me up scottie May 2015 #21
No, not me. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #24
Agreed. Like people who imagine censorship where there is none Scootaloo May 2015 #25
The topic of criminalizing hate speech was raised earlier. True Blue Door May 2015 #14
"As for your Putin-esque attempts to Godwinize liberalism" Scootaloo May 2015 #17
Floating the specter of Nazism doesn't work when the main reason it failed True Blue Door May 2015 #26
You're the one raising naziism first off Scootaloo May 2015 #29
I mentioned Nazism to deflate it as an argument I knew someone like you would raise. True Blue Door May 2015 #32
Great post about the Weimar constitution Pooka Fey May 2015 #39
Scholars have written volumes on the subject, there are hours of documentary footage available Pooka Fey May 2015 #37
I'm aware of the history, and of people's attempts to rewrite it for ideological purposes. True Blue Door May 2015 #41
Let me analyse just one sentence of your above post, because I only have 45 minutes. Pooka Fey May 2015 #42
France had a resistance movement. Germany had a few random people defying Hitler True Blue Door May 2015 #44
Stating that a German Resistance existed does in NO WAY condone or excuse the evil of the 3rd Reich Pooka Fey May 2015 #45
The scholarship on the subject is massive because the need to find humanizing details True Blue Door May 2015 #47
Fine...however without consequences hate speeches lead into actions. vaberella May 2015 #9
All speech has consequences. Not all speech leads to actions. True Blue Door May 2015 #12
I'm not convinced the metro bus system couldnt have other options for regulating ads than Warren DeMontague May 2015 #19
But is it censorship to have those ads? Scootaloo May 2015 #22
Oh ffs. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #23
I try to restrain my pissed-offness for things that are actually happening Scootaloo May 2015 #28
I didn't say she was being censored. Neither did the OP. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #30
Is it? Scootaloo May 2015 #31
I watched Straight Religious people stage hundreds and hundreds of attacks on LGBT funerals while Bluenorthwest May 2015 #36
It's different because it's offensive to religious people, Blue. beam me up scottie May 2015 #46
Uh, hardly, dude. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #43
the sake of argument ellennelle May 2015 #35
I'm aware that rational argument is insufficient, but it is definitely indispensable. True Blue Door May 2015 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Censorship of hate speech...»Reply #35