Xref: utzoo news.misc:2838 alt.flame:5659 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!um-math!sharkey!shadooby!accuvax.nwu.edu!tank!ncar!ames!ll-xn!husc6!rutgers!psuvax1!gondor.cs.psu.edu!hoffman From: hoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman) Newsgroups: news.misc,alt.flame Subject: Re: Freedom of hate Message-ID: <4441@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Date: 5 Apr 89 23:16:41 GMT References: <14130@gryphon.COM> <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Reply-To: hoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman) Followup-To: alt.flame,misc.legal Distribution: na Organization: Penn State University Lines: 162 In article <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: [responding to Richard Sexton's article] Look, Patrick: Under normal circumstances I am neither a reader of soc.motss, nor a representative for PSU in general, or PSUVM in particular. Nor am I a member of any group which Whitehead advocated "exterminating." So, for me, your arguments about "all you gays are being so hypocritical supporting the ACLU for fighting for gay rights, and not supporting them when they say all speech is protected under the First Amendment" falls apart on the one factor immediately. The rest of it falls apart below. > > . . .Not only are the South African blacks treated badly, >their defenders are also hassled. It is not uncommon for the government >there to silence persons thought to stir up the blacks and cause some >aggravation for the government. They prohibit them from giving public >speeches among other things. It sort of reminds one of the way Mr. Verity >at Penn State responds to troublesome speech-makers. > Not at all. Bill Verity would be an idiot to attempt to prevent James Whitehead from giving a public speech. That has nothing at all to do with the issue. Good to see that you're so politically conscious, though. >>Whitehead advocated killing homosexuals, and you're blathering about >>free speech ? > >Why of course I am. Isn't that the proper ACLU-like position to take on >the matter? Didn't the American Nazis go to the village of Skokie, IL >and advocate killing Jews with the ACLU's blessings and assistance? >Aren't most liberal homosexual activists great supporters of the ACLU? >All of a sudden when it is homosexuals suggested as the objects of the >genocide the deal is off huh? > No. I would *love* to see James Whitehead go to Skokie, IL. I would buy him the ticket. Provided he didn't come back. If the American Nazis were, as a group, to get PSUVM accounts (not so impossible as you might think) and then post letters about "why jews, those loathsome sloths of the earth, should be exterminated" to soc.culture.jewish, in addition to claiming not to actually *believe* any of the things they said, but were trying to get attention and response, they would also most likely have their accounts suspended. Swiftly. > >Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. 1) If that is indeed the literal position of the ACLU (which it is not, last time I heard anything about it), it is wrong. 2) Usenet is a special case, being a privately funded network system. I've covered many of the legal aspects here before, so there's no need to repeat them now. The ACLU takes such radical positions on "free speech" because it has to. Taking a radical position avoids having to make difficult and possibly unpopular judgement calls on individual issues, once you state your initial stand The American Civil Liberties Union takes a stand that the First Amendment is all-encompassing, because it is MUCH easier to say "I oppose the restriction of expression of any kind" than to say, "I oppose most restrictions on freedom of expression." With the second case, you then have to define what does and does not fall within your definition. Messy. And that is why I belong neither to the NRA nor the ACLU, although I agree with at least 50% of the positions taken by each. Better to steer a middle path through the rhetoric created by groups which are necessarily uniformly radical by their very natures. Damn. Sidetracked. Back to the topic. Topic? > >Whitehead did not generate all the messages which went back to his site. >Those were generated by the users who wrote him or his sysadmin -- not >the other way around. Whitehead wrote one message, posted a dozen places. >How many of you wrote back, cross posting everywhere in the process? >So who was the biggest waster of bandwidth? > But he made his posts with the intent to create a great deal of net volume, by his own admission. He succeeded, and in that respect is still succeeding. > >I can draw the line almost anywhere except when when it comes to the liberal >hypocrisy I see spouted off by those of you who on the one hand support >freedom of speech for every crazed fool who comes along except when your >own little village is violated. Everytime I *even imply* there might be some >limits to obnoxious behavior which the ACLU supports under the guise of >the United States Constitution I get a ton of replies from folks telling me >I should not pick on a fine, noble, wonderful group like ACLU. > Sounds like a persecution complex to me. >Well, I think if the ACLU did get interested in Whitehead's case, they would >be on his side. And they would swiftly lose any case that came to court. > > . . .I just >thought it funny that a group of people (homosexuals) who for many >years have been among the biggest allies of the American 'Civil Liberties' >Union one day got their own oxe gored. Their own little village got >invaded by someone who came to spread hate and discontent. And after years >of indoctrination in The True Meaning Of Free Speech And The American Way, >*they suddenly forgot, or chose to ignore all their lessons*. The ACLU has fought for the rights of gays and lesbians to avoid discrimination (esp in the workplace) based entirely upon sexual orientation. I would suspect that such legal action is supported almost universally by gay people. That does not imply, however, that any particular person, or homosexuals as a group, support all the goals of the ACLU, any more than I support all the goals of the ACLU. The various "rights" you are comparing are not directly related, and your tone here is just a bit too gleeful for my taste. > >Let me be frank, and succinct with you: I can argue this with you from >either side of the coin. You want to switch roles for awhile? You argue >in favor of the speech, and I will argue against it. Whenever you wish, >we will switch sides again. Ah, so you don't really have a side. I see. Rather than actually having an opinion on this matter, your only point in making this post was to point out the "hypocracy" of gay people wanting both to avoid being persecuted and discriminated against, and also wanting to avoid being harassed in the newsgroups devoted to homosexual issues by ignorant bigots who tell them that they should be "exterminated." Absolutely brilliant. As opposed to the rest of us who feel strongly enough about some aspect of this issue that we take time out to debate it, you are simply engaging in a little mental game to waste some time. You, sirrah, are an idiot. >all honesty his speech was repugnant to me. But so are your ethics and >the apparent inability of the residents of soc.motss to be consistent in >their views; at least of the several who wrote to get Whitehead banned >from speaking. > More brilliance. Oh, of course you should judge *all* readers of soc.motss, both gay and het, by the "several" reactions you personally bothered to read. Simply amazing. In addition to there being, incidentally, no inconsistency in wanting to get Whitehead's posting privileges suspended and supporting gay rights. >Anyway, you get my point, I think. > Actually, there appear to be two possibilities: 1) You have no point to make whatsoever. 2) You have your own axe to grind, and this issue provides a convenient excuse. I think I would rather believe "1." Richard C. Hoffman