At 08:05 AM 5/2/96 UTC, Skipjack Sally wrote:
Noticeable about capitali$t graves, he dissmisses EVERY attempt to censor racists with a "who cares," "there just a bunch of weinies," "if you can be heard *somewhere* without being arrested, it's not censorship," etc. He seems to imply that merely because racists are powerless, we are not worthy of protection. I suppose if you have enough money, you can PURCHASE your freedom, if not, tough shit.
You do not need protection against speech, you need protection against ACTS. Speech in and of itself does not harm anyone.
We free-speachers don't need a character who defends the prosecutors when racists are sued or imprisoned in Canada, UK, and Germany, merely for printing racist leaflets.
You claim to believe in free speech, but only for yourself it seems. You seem to desire the punishment of some speech, but not others. Who decides in this case? You? Me? The amorphious blob known as "Government"? I prefer the racists being able to speak in public because it gives people the chance to counter their lies with arguments. Truncheons just create marters and sympathy for their cause. Actually, I believe that the people who have been crying for the racists to be silenced have given them more free advertising than they could possibly get on their own. In the black and white thinking patterns of today, and the resistance to authority that is growing in the world, cries for censorship make those groups more attractive to those looking for a "cause". --- Alan Olsen -- alano@teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon