Hi Contracycle
Well, I had some comments to your first post but I see now that you edited itwhich is ok with me., but do let me say this:
How is hate speech antidemocratic? If a majority of the people want and accept hate speech, isn’t it antidemocratic to suppress it? And the real problem comes in when you have to decide WHO determines which words will defined as hateful and which words will not. If, in South Africa for example, a type of Apartheid once again becomes the system of government, and they (the leaders) decide that any words derogatory towards the white race are considered hateful, would that be ok with you?
Now, on to your edited version.
contracycle writes:
I appreciate your pint of view but point out the following: even in the US feedom of speech is not absolute. The classic qualification is that you do not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded building, as this can easily be construed as a malicious act in its own right.
I agree and addressed it in your original post. Those sorts of words are indeed illegal in this country, as they should be. No one complains about suppressing words that cause, or are likely to cause, harm.
contracycle writes:
The difference in our positions is that I do not believe that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me". I think "the pen is mightier than the sword". As we saw with Bushes purely semantic linkage of Al Qaeda qwith Iraq, and how that succesfully manipulated American public opinion, public speech is a delicate issue.
I do see your point here. But there is a difference between saying hateful words (I think niggers are sub-human (ya know...I had a hard time even typing that)) and lying (Al Qaeda is linked to Iraq). George W. Bush should be held accountable for lying to the American Public. Trust me when I say that there are millions of Americans that would love nothing more than to see this hypocritical administration held accountable for its lies. But what does this have to do with free speech?
contracycle writes:
I think "the pen is mightier than the sword".
And I think when that when Edward George Bulwer Lytton wrote that phrase, the implication was that the pen would be used as a form of free speech to denounce hateful and despicable wordsnot to write laws banning them.
™ Version 4.2
