Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Could D. Black have legal problems?
Message-ID: <773@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 11:19:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.773
Posted: Wed Sep 25 11:19:16 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:46:27 EDT
References: <195@pyuxh.UUCP> <10451@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 40

In article <10451@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes:
> Actually, in at least one of the cases, I'm told that Eddie Greenspan,
> Canada's finest criminal lawyer, was prepared to defend the Nazi pro bono.
> Greenspan's defense plan was said to have been simple: either you have
> free speech or you don't, and the truth, falsity or obnoxiousness of what
> the guy has to say is all irrelevant.  However, the jerk said that he
> didn't want one of those Damn Jews defending him, and instead hired a
> well-known right-wing nitwit named Doug Christie.

How ironically fitting.

> I hope not.  Free speech is free speech, and while I think that what Black
> has to say is about five degrees the other side of lunacy, he still has a
> right to say it, lest you lose your right to speak.

I agree that Black has a right under American law to say what he's saying.

On the other hand, I think that freedom of speech is only one of several
freedoms we try to maintain, and is occasionally in conflict with the
others.  Thus Canada's hate laws negotiate the conflict between freedom
of speech and other liberties.

Let's look at some hypothetical analogies.  A racist leader says "I want that
Jew/Nigger/whatever dead" to a crowd of his followers, expecting that his
wishes will be carried out.  If the next day the subject is found dead,
and the murderer claims he was obeying the leader, is the leader guilty
of conspiracy?  Say he hasn't yet been obeyed: is he still guilty of
conspiracy?  Suppose he says that he wants all of them dead: is he still
guilty of conspiracy?

The fact is that freedom of speech always has been constrained, and never
has been absolute.  At the fringes of common exercise of free speech we
will encounter cases where other liberties or practical matters constrain
us.  Where we (the people, government, whatever) decide is up to us.
I routinely prefer enlarging freedoms, but in the case of racial hatred,
I could swing either way.  And personally, I'm glad to see racism actively
combatted.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com