Limits of Toleration

[Aggie]

Tea Baggers or Tea-Birthers?  The few I've run into online seem to support both 'movements'.

Hadn't heard the second one. But I like it.

I made it up on the spot.  Seemed like the same group of people. 
I hadn't heard the term Tea-Baggers applied this way before. 

[Swatopluk]

A part of me thinks that a huge convention should be organized in Alaska to mobilize all of them there and then close the borders, then they can declare their precious independence and live happily ever after. 

But the Alaska separatists are "Alaska natives only". This is quoted as one possible reason why Sarah Palin did her preganancy stunt. Otherwise her youngest son would not have been a native of Alaska and that would have undermined her family position within the Alaska Independence Party.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But the Alaska separatists are "Alaska natives only".

As if reason were an obstacle for them... 

[Swatopluk]

If they were reasonable, they would not try to secede in the first place.

[Zan]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.

Here in Fat City, free speech is (supposedly) sacred, with the exception of overt acts (incitement to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).

Simple racism isn't illegal, nor do I personally believe it should be.  Freedom of speech has to include unpopular speech - even ignorant or vile speech - or it isn't a freedom at all.  After all, popular speech doesn't need protection.

Toleration should be extended to any and all who leave their opinion as just that...speech.  Those who take steps to put their opinions into practice (such as the BNP in England, or ANY political party in America) should be jerked up short.

Of course, that's all theory.  In reality, our freedom of speech here in Fat City has devolved into mere privilege, with the introduction of "free speech zones" that have been used through 3 presidencies now, government engineered violence at demonstrations, and of course we are always ready to crush any really new ideas through the simple brute force of market power.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.

Here in Fat City, free speech is (supposedly) sacred, with the exception of overt acts (incitement to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).

Simple racism isn't illegal, nor do I personally believe it should be.  Freedom of speech has to include unpopular speech - even ignorant or vile speech - or it isn't a freedom at all.  After all, popular speech doesn't need protection.

Toleration should be extended to any and all who leave their opinion as just that...speech.  Those who take steps to put their opinions into practice (such as the BNP in England, or ANY political party in America) should be jerked up short.

Of course, that's all theory.  In reality, our freedom of speech here in Fat City has devolved into mere privilege, with the introduction of "free speech zones" that have been used through 3 presidencies now, government engineered violence at demonstrations, and of course we are always ready to crush any really new ideas through the simple brute force of market power.

^ What Zan said. I still don't think anything more than "fire!" or "kill ___" (IF it results in a riot, and ONLY if) should be illegal.

[Roland Deschain]

Read pages 1 and 3 in full, but skimmed page 2.

I think that freedom of speech means exactly that; full freedom to say whatever you like (except to incite violence). I know this can cause issues, as evidenced throughout this discussion, but to not allow someone a voice just because we disagree with their opinion is a double standard if you agree with free speech. As said above, popular opinions don't need protecting. Allowing the airing of different views also gives you the opportunity to alter peoples' opinions, as there's nothing like an open debate to show the problems inherent in them.

Take the issue of allowing the BNP on Question Time. By allowing them on, it allowed not only the BNP to introduce others to their views, but also the opposition to lay waste to their bigotry and ignorance, and in a fashion that allowed many more to see it being done than normal. Those most likely to vote for the BNP aren't statistically as likely to watch programmes like Question Time as supporters of other parties, as many of their supporters tend to be poorly educated (I met more than a few growing up, unfortunately). This means that the message would only reach their more educated followers, and therefore those more likely to understand the arguments. To reach those others will take far more than Question Time.

There are laws now in effect in the UK that allow the police to fine you, and in some cases prosecute you, for passing remarks that another person finds either racially or sexually (as in sexuality) insulting. I completely disagree with this law. This amounts to nothing more than a thoughtcrime law, and is just one step on the road to something worse. It essentially makes offending someone an offence, albeit only in specific ways, which I think is ridiculous in the extreme. Criminalising someone for speaking their mind is a reprehensible act in a democracy, the point of which is to allow everyone a voice.

I am with Voltaire 100% when he said something along the lines of "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I do not care how reprehensible the topic someone agrees with and vocalises; they have the right not only to think that, but also the right to say what they think. To repress one point of view is to, in principle, oppress them all.

[Swatopluk]

While I agree in general, the line between inconsequential speech and incitement is a blurry one and incitors have made it an art to walk that line (dogwhistle, code words). There are certain areas where I would rather err on the side of caution and allow to block certain things from being aired publically. But that needs thoughtful deliberation and has to be secured against abuse constantly. No matches for proven arsonists but what about those that are only strongly suspect of becoming ones once they get their hands on the means?

[Roland Deschain]

That's a good point you make there, but as you also say, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Where is that line, and who gets to decide that? Does this mean that government or law enforcement should then monitor every little thing that anyone says, or should other people who hear such things be asked to report it? Ok, so maybe that's a little extreme, and smacks of the versions of fascism and communism seen in the last century, but I feel it's a valid question to ask. The process is incredibly open to abuse, and it doesn't take much to go from a very open society to a very closed one. Creeping fascism, to take on such example, didn't take long to take hold in Europe in the middle of the 20th century, and it was done with pretty much explicit public approval. Also look at the laws enacted in the US because of 9/11. They would have been shot down in seconds if they were suggested 20 years ago (Clinton did try to get a watered-down version of the Patriot Act through congress after the Oklahoma City bombing).

Using the arsonist analogy, if someone is suspected, let them stay suspected, and leave them alone until such time that they either, (a) Ask for help with their problem, (b) Need dealing with by the law, or (c) Die. I am also a strong believer in "innocent until proven guilty". I've seen and read about far too many people who've been ridiculed or demonised, just for being "suspected" for something, and as we all know that mud (or your brown object of choice) sticks, it is better to err on the side of caution than to join in with that form of madness. I would rather 10 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent person be incarcerated.

Regardless, it is indeed a thin line to walk between freedom and tyranny, and we can only do what we can to the best of our abilities.

[Swatopluk]

The rule over here is generally that one can say (write etc.) what one wants as long as it is not public even if it is a call to commit a crime. The question of law/censorship only arises once the speech becomes public (deliberately; accidental release is a different matter). Since there is no censorship officially, the state has to prove in each individual case that someone has crossed the line and the courts have set rather high standards for that. To go back to the arsonist analogy, if someone threatens to commit arson and immediately after tries to acquire the tools for that, this would be enough for suspicion. The potential seller (provided he knew of the threats) would have to notify authorities and may have the right to refuse to sell. Authorities would have the right (even duty) to at least observe the actions of the potential arsonist, not necessarily to arrest him on the spot. If on the other hand the threats are not quickly followed by action, the authorities would have no right of permanent surveillance or to impose restrictions on what the person could buy based on just the verbal threats.
If a preacher shouts from the pulpit that certain persons deserve to die, that is borderline but would likely not be enough to gag him. If he then publishes the addresses and schedules of said persons and later loudly applauds, when someone who heard him went out to kill those, that would be ample reason for arrest and trial even if he had not explictly called for murder. The second part, i.e. publishing info that seems to amount to assistance to commit a crime in order to instigate it, would likely end with a conviction in court over here (high clerics of established churches may still get a pass there) but not in the US (or a number of media personalities would end up in jail while in reality they get not even tried). Henry II should have just worked for Fox and nothing would have happened to him

The laws have to be clear (no 'rubber paragraphs') and the courts have to be held to a high standard. If these conditions are not met, any attempts at speech suppression should be fought. If they are met I am willing to put up with quite a deal.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was thinking two things on the subject. First, let's imagine someone who frequently claims that Jesus was of Celtic origin, who also says that there is a conspiracy of bankers to take over the world, that they should be stopped and that everybody knows what kind of people they are. Notice I left out any reference to any ethnic group and that while not explicitly advocating violence it can be implied. You don't need a PhD to figure out he is likely an antisemite but he is getting away with it even if he isn't spelling out his hate.

The other comes from the opposite side of the spectrum, the establishment will always try to preserve the status quo, therefore any form of speech that undermines the status quo is by definition subversive regardless of the merits the establishment may or not have, that is, even a "good" establishment will fret about speech it dislikes. On the same token, the establishment will find ways to censor subversive information even if those aren't obvious, for instance if the media is controlled by said establishment it will not shed light to embarrassing or questionable facts (say, the government lending to the banks at 0% to borrow back from the same banks at 5-10%). IOW you don't need censorship laws to have effective censorship.

[pieces o nine]

Censorship, correction, or courtesy?

That is always the question, and there is no one-size-fits-all rule that can properly address it. Breakfast at Tiffany's is on my favorite oldies list, but I absolutely loathe Mickey Rooney's cameo as Mr. Yunioshi. I don't know if they were trying -- ineptly -- to mimic one of Jerry Lewis' stock characters, or if they truly thought it added something of merit to the plot, but my loathing of iot has only increased with time.  I was able to excise it from my VHS copy, but it remains on the dvd upgrade. I believe with all my heart that *nothing* would be lost, and the movie could only be enhanced for the enjoyment of future generations if that racist claptrap were eliminated.

In other words, I'd like to censor it for what I believe to be noble and proper impulses, and I'd *like* to think that rational minds would share my assessment.

Which, it pains me to admit, is the same process going on in the minds of the people hysterically trying to re-write law, history and science in order to conform to their preferred version of an arbitrary Holy Book. (Not to mention, the *exact process* used to write their holy book in the first -- and second, third, fourth -- place.)

Well, there *is* one difference: I am right and they are wrong...   

And that conundrum presents itself to me whenever this topic comes up. Who gets to choose what is 'right" and what is 'wrong'? Small-d democratic voting works on some issues, but is entirely suspect on *fact*, quickly becoming a wrong-headed mob rule wherever ignorance, uber patriotism, and emotional response trumps reason. On the other hand, passively wringing those hands on the sidelines in awareness of my own potential for error (due to incomplete and finite knowledge, if not hampered by  'wrong' bias) and doing nothing is not an ethical position. It leads, ineluctably, to another classic observation: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [men] do nothing.

[Roland Deschain]

PoN, I know how you feel about Mickey Rooney's cameo in Breakfast at Tiffany's, which is otherwise such a fine film, but I disagree with censoring it. History must be allowed to be as it is, warts and all, so that not only can future generations look back at it and be shown how attitudes have changed for the better since that day, but also to see how beauty can be marred with ugliness, and to learn from it.

As much as I don't want to bring elements of Orwellian language into this, it's very much like the memory hole. If we censor that one thing, erasing it from our history, then do we stop there? What if we carried on, erasing everything else that is morally repugnant to us? Where would we stand at this point, or even far into the future, unable to learn from the mistakes of our past because we've removed them? I don't like the idea of that at all.

It used to be taught in history lessons in the UK that colonialism=good, but as the colonies became ex-colonies, and the decades slowly moved on, the emphasis was put onto the negative aspects of it, and shame was what was taught. This is all well and good, as there were many awful atrocities committed in the forthright nature of the British of the time, but should not the benefits be taught alongside the bad things? History is never black and white, but many shades of grey. For sure you should teach that colonialism/slavery/whatever is bad, as this is the moral thing to do, but balance is also needed here, and without a full picture of our history, however reprehensible its content, we cannot fully understand it.

[Griffin NoName]

It used to be taught in history lessons in the UK that colonialism=good, but as the colonies became ex-colonies, and the decades slowly moved on, the emphasis was put onto the negative aspects of it, and shame was what was taught. This is all well and good, as there were many awful atrocities committed in the forthright nature of the British of the time, but should not the benefits be taught alongside the bad things?

This is like when a relationship breaks up and you are not the one instigating the break up but the one who is left. To move forward you have to focus on all the negative aspects of the relationship. Hopefully this is a phase and not for the rest of your life. When fully separated from the relationship by having painted it negative, one can then start to remember the good aspects.* I suspect it is still too soon for us Britains to admit there was any good in colonialism.

*Book = Uncoupling by Diane Vaughan

[pieces o nine]

GAH! an errant keystroke just sent my entire reply to the ethers! 

PoN, I know how you feel about Mickey Rooney's cameo in Breakfast at Tiffany's, which is otherwise such a fine film, but I disagree with censoring it. History must be allowed to be as it is, warts and all, so that not only can future generations look back at it and be shown how attitudes have changed for the better since that day, but also to see how beauty can be marred with ugliness, and to learn from it.

Yes. I agree.

And yet...

There are no enlightened beings educating our children or creating our culture, just fellow homo sapiens, each with his or her own reactional baggage on various issues. To stay with my example, I've seen films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's shown to kids without commentary, in order to avoid imposing political correctness gone mad [<---which is sometimes a valid criticism]. As a result, an ugly stereotype which should have died generations ago is passed on, intact, to a new one which finds it hi-LAR-ious.

Another, nonscientific, anecdote is from my teens. Alex Haley's ROOTS had been aired on network television and been avidly watched in my 99% white hometown. The next time a black was on an opposing basketball team, half the males in our pep band spent the entire game bellowing KUNTA KINTE at the tops of their lungs every time he was on the court. It was clearly audibly to the players and the fans, but the band director, refs, and coaches were -- incredibly -- struck deaf and did not notice. No punitive action was taken against our students, who continued bullying other minority targets, with slurs learned from other cultural treasures (or not).

Those are two examples. I could give dozens more, and very few showing enlightened, empathic behavior. Should those cultural items be censored or destroyed then?  Absolutely not!

But the only lessons those students learned were new ways to torment others, because the adults were too passive, too unsure, or even too privately in favor of perpetuating stereotypes, to give any alternative guidance -- let alone model it. How can individuals escape ugly and stupid stereotypes when the larger community just keeps passing them on?

There is no easy answer, or this problem would have been solved long ago. But just hoping that people will improve on their own does no more good than attempting censorship. The public doesn't change its collective beliefs or actions until vocal individuals demand change -- relentlessly -- until critical mass is reached. Even then, it takes very little to waken -- or redirect -- mental poison. That is, assuming the change is made *towards* enlightenment, and not a resurrection of institutionalized prejudices and actions. Perhaps if I didn't see so many neighbors clamoring to elect reactionary, repressive, bald-faced lying, anti-intellectual, *evil* men to office at every level, I would be more optimistic that the lessons of history can be learned to a society's greater benefit.