desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/24/86)
In article <6807@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >Now if Z were attacking me as an individual, I would have, >in principle, recourse. I could sue him, or I could get an >injunction. I note as a practical matter that I might not >be able to do this; if I were poor and ignorant and Z were >wealthy I might not be able to afford the associated legal >costs. > >It has been said that freedom of speech is paramount, that >in a free interchange of ideas lies will be exposed for what >they are. I submit that this is not the issue. The issue >is one of recourse. If you defame me as an individual, I >have recourse. If Zundel had attacked an individual in the >way that he attacked the Jews, that individual would have >had recourse. But when someone attacks a group, where is >the recourse? I agree to this extent: if it is reasonable for an individual to have recourse then it is reasonable for the group to have recourse. But they are both censorship, and I agree with neither. You do make a good point against those who claim that they support laws protecting individuals but not protecting groups... -- David desJardins