Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Television coverage and censorship in Canada (in net.columbia??)
Message-ID: <12138@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 3-Mar-86 05:14:55 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12138
Posted: Mon Mar  3 05:14:55 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Mar-86 19:16:47 EST
References: <6396@utzoo.UUCP> <514@kontron.UUCP> <814@alberta.UUCP> <534@kontron.UUCP> <11544@watnot.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Distribution: net.politics
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 36

In article <11544@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes:
>I personally have a hard time saying that it was wrong to prosecute him.
>What would you do if someone said that world war II never happened. Hitler
>never existed, and never tried to take over the world.

   I would ignore him, since I know that he is wrong.

>What would you do if someone said that americans were evil, and are trying
>to take over the world?
> :-) asides from giving arms to the other side (-:

   If he said this about all Americans, I would ignore him, since I know
that he is wrong.  If he said this about America I would certainly respect
his opinion and might even agree with him (depending on how you define
words like "evil", but this is a separate issue).

>                                                       ...  Another Zundel
>may come along, and no one will be able to say that he's lying because they
>will not have seen the horror for themselves.  Then Mr. Zundel will not be
>found guilty.  Then everyone will say  "Well if they couldn't prove he's 
>lying in a court of law, then he must not be lying."  Where will we be then. 

   This is *exactly* the point.  This is why censorship is bad and freedom
of speech is good.  If you set up the courts as arbiters of what people
can say, you are implicitly lending moral support to everything that is
not censored.  But the fact, as you note, is that you are not going to be
able to censor all of the things which are wrong or hateful or generally
vile.  If nothing else there are more idiots to say false things than there
are courts to punish them.
   If you don't have any censorship, then people learn to take unsupported
statements for exactly what they are worth.  Nothing.

   The Constitution says "freedom of speech."  This is what I believe in.
Without conditions.

   -- David desJardins