janw@inmet.UUCP (10/15/85)
[Dave Sherman, quoting a magazine article by Albert Frank : dave@lsuc] /* ---------- "Hate literature laws no violation o" ---------- */ > [legal arguments are given in support of the following:] > The same principles justify the civil law of defamation and the > criminal laws concerning hate literature; they stand or fall > together. Those who are of the opinion that hate literature > is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech must, to be > consistent, urge that the tort of defamation be abolished for > precisely the same reason. The legal argumentation sounds impressive; though another lawyer could, perhaps, do the same for the other side. Precedents and analogies can always be found both for extending and curtailing freedom of speech. But I would argue that, pragmatically, ex- tending it works, while curtailing, in a free society, usually fails. A clever person can always find ways (and then non-clever ones can imitate him) to package his message so as to stay just on the boundary of your new rules. The message becomes more at- tractive by being an almost-forbidden fruit. And sometimes he will slightly overstep the boundary to provoke a conspicuous tri- al where he will have the star role. The trial may go either way; if it goes his way, his vindication in the defamation case may rub off onto his odious views. If it goes your way, he gains some sympathy as the underdog. At present, he only has one issue, on which he is clearly wrong. You propose to hand him another, on which he can sometimes be right. > I have spoken to many people who think that it would be better > to sue hate propagandists than to prosecute them, a view which I > share. So do I. > The civil law should be reformed to allow class action > lawsuits against those who defame groups. > > Until or unless the civil law is reformed, it is good that the > criminal law is available. We must not forget the seriousness > of group defamation. Well, it is not a question of its seriousness (on which I agree) but of its bordering on the expression of views on general to- pics. Should Shockley be liable for his scientific theory that blacks are less intelligent than whites ? Or should he only lose his case if he is scientifically wrong (as I think he is) ? Or only if his methods are unscientific (I think they are, along with everything else in this field) ? Or should he be judged by his intentions, which are almost certainly good, but how can you prove this ? The case of denying Holocaust is at one end of an enormous spec- trum. I don't know what Canadian courts would do to a Turk deny- ing the Armenian Holocaust of 1915. This is probably the next nearest case. The Turkish exterminators were not such meticulous record-keepers as the German ones, and estimates vary wildly. Next comes a devout Communist denying Stalin's purges. Then a mildly left-wing guy who thinks Soviet massacres in Afghanistan are no worse than what Americans did in Vietnam. And then both sides of the Ulster confrontation with their com- peting histories of the events there. Where can you draw the line? And, at every reopening of this legal problem, you will have the champions of mass murder posing as champions of free speech! That prospect disgusts me the most. GIVE the bastards free speech. Let me repeat: I have no doubt of the seriousness of the issue: THESE PEOPLE DENY THE HOLOCAUST IN ORDER TO REPEAT IT. E.g., such is the clear implication of two opinions expressed here by one poster: that Jews are not true Americans, and also have no right to live in what is now Israel. Where are they supposed to go ? Up the chimney, had the poster been less shy to speak his mind. (Aren't you glad to have a specimen like that under observation? Well, I am not ... but I should be). What can be done ? Well, the B'nai B'rith Antidefamation League methods seemed to work well in the past. (And Henry Ford the 1st was a stronger opponent than present-day bigots). Using existing laws; economic pressure; political pressure. Find allies. Religious and ethnic minorities (by the way: does Specimen ever mention blacks ?); politicians, left and right. Jerry Falwell (who is unpopular on this net, and not at all my hero) is very decent on the Jewish issues, and is an authority to many people who might otherwise be susceptible to sectarian ha- tred ideologues. Find out who finances these organizations and try pulling the rug from under them. Contact broader political groups of which they are part, and have them thrown out - as they were from John Birch society. Our specimen brags of being hand- in-glove with all kinds of people - from Noam Chomsky to the Mor- mon church. But I bet some of them aren't proud of the connec- tion. Give them a chance to say so. Making something illegal does not automatically eliminate it; making it unfashionable and frowned upon sometimes works better. But most of all, keep living. Don't let them set the agenda. At one time, this net group almost became net.specimen. That, in itself, was a victory for him. The best antidote was probably to use him as an occasion to discuss some more general topics, as we are doing now. Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/16/85)
>/* Written 12:45 pm Oct 11, 1985 by dave@lsuc in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Hate literature laws no violation o" ---------- */ > >The same principles justify the civil law of defamation and the >criminal laws concerning hate literature; they stand or fall >together. Those who are of the opinion that hate literature >is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech must, to be >consistent, urge that the tort of defamation be abolished for >precisely the same reason. Actually, I'm not so sure this would be a bad idea. Because of anti-defamation laws, one finds that the printed word has an authority that it doesn't really deserve. How many times have you heard "Well, they wouldn't print it if it weren't true!" A person's reputation does NOT belong to him. One's reputation is the product of what other people think of one. If I "own" my reputation, it follows that I have a right to tell other people what to think of me. If, on the other hand, my "reputation" is acknowledged to be owned by others, then the people who "own" my reputation may sue for fraud if someone makes false statements about me to his own advantage, so it doesn't follow that those who defame would find it safe to do so. It's a thorny problem in some ways, of course, I *feel* damaged when people say bad things about me, so I *feel* as if I've a right to compensation, but do I really? I'd prefer freedom of speech, even dangerous speech, to ceding the authority to gag people to anybody, especially politicians.