On Wed, 14 May 1997, Ming the Merciless wrote:
>
> sorry if this is offtopic, but i just had to say i'm really against
> trying to sabotage their newsgroup. if they wanna have their white
> power party, let em, ya know what i mean? or else you martyrize them
> and give em more reason to want to have solidarity. plus, what's the
> justification? that they're "dangerous"? if that's it, then it won't
> be long before other groups get mobilized against too - socialists,
> islamic fundamentalists, operation rescue people, whoever. i've been to
> one of those "storm front" pages and it was scary and repulsive, but
> i was glad it was there for people to see. same goes for the david duke
> homepage. i'll shut up now . . .
>
> sig http://pages.nyu.edu/~scs7891
>
I respect your opinion and your reasoning on this matter, but dissent from
it. I think society has a compelling interest, one that overrides the
right of free speech, in stopping the dissemination of such views. The
right of free speech should be allowed to operate within very broad and
very generous parameters, but it should not (in my view) be absolute.
You mention the universalization problem: if we censor Nazis and white
power groups, what's to keep others from trying to silence socialists and
Islamic fundamentalists? But I think this is a logical dead end. In fact,
*nothing* keeps others from trying to silence socialists and Islamic
fundamentalists. Let them try. They will lose.
But groups who unapologetically celebrate and hope to recreate regimes
that systematically murder millions upon millions of individuals are not
worthy of *citizens'* right to free speech.
And now it is I who will shut up.
--John
>
> sorry if this is offtopic, but i just had to say i'm really against
> trying to sabotage their newsgroup. if they wanna have their white
> power party, let em, ya know what i mean? or else you martyrize them
> and give em more reason to want to have solidarity. plus, what's the
> justification? that they're "dangerous"? if that's it, then it won't
> be long before other groups get mobilized against too - socialists,
> islamic fundamentalists, operation rescue people, whoever. i've been to
> one of those "storm front" pages and it was scary and repulsive, but
> i was glad it was there for people to see. same goes for the david duke
> homepage. i'll shut up now . . .
>
> sig http://pages.nyu.edu/~scs7891
>
I respect your opinion and your reasoning on this matter, but dissent from
it. I think society has a compelling interest, one that overrides the
right of free speech, in stopping the dissemination of such views. The
right of free speech should be allowed to operate within very broad and
very generous parameters, but it should not (in my view) be absolute.
You mention the universalization problem: if we censor Nazis and white
power groups, what's to keep others from trying to silence socialists and
Islamic fundamentalists? But I think this is a logical dead end. In fact,
*nothing* keeps others from trying to silence socialists and Islamic
fundamentalists. Let them try. They will lose.
But groups who unapologetically celebrate and hope to recreate regimes
that systematically murder millions upon millions of individuals are not
worthy of *citizens'* right to free speech.
And now it is I who will shut up.
--John