Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 20:45:19 -0400
Steven Z replied to:
>> And incidentally (amusingly enough), the Bill of Rights *was* a change to
>> the Constitution. You see, those archaic slaveowners considered the
>> possibility that their document might need to adapt to the times, and
>> supplied a prcedure to adapt it *right in the document*. Amazing that they
>> had that much foresight, huh?
>
>No shit, sherlock. It's still 200 years old. Jeez...
>
What makes an old idea worse than a new one? Is it simply the
age? Give me a break. Back up your arguments please.
>> In the late 19th, and early 20th century, ideas like equal rights,
>> and NON-xenophobic propaganda, were considered DANGEROUS and criminal.
>
>That's a good point, but still, that's almost 100 years ago.
>
This is getting silly. You're saying that 100 years ago ideas
were "outdated" and therefore do not apply to today's world. However,
the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) was ratified in 1865. That's
over 100 years old -- how can an idea so old still apply today?? Also,
the 19th amendment (equal rights for women) is almost 80 years old.
Many "old" ideas still apply today.
>> Lemme put it like this. You may think you are fighting the neo-nazis by
>> suppressing their pamphlets and books, but all you're really doing is BEING
>> EXACTLY LIKE THEM!
>
>Bull-fucking-shit. If I'm going to hate someone, I'm not
>going to hate him because of his race or religion or sexual
>preference or what neighborhood he comes from or what color
>bandana he wears. That's Nazism (or neo-Nazism or racism or
>whatever). I hate people for something MUCH more dangerous
>than that: what they THINK and what they DO - things that
>have the potential to do harm to others.
>
You're being contradictory again. You hate some people for how
they think, but you said that you won't hate anyone because of their
religion. Religion is a belief, a set of thoughts. If the KKK was
an official religion I suppose you could no longer hate them? A person
could just as easily hate Jews, not for their religion, but for how
they think about God.
Perhaps you don't mean to, but you are implying that since
people think things that you don't like that we should be able to
apply control over those thoughts just in case they might act on them.
Is that what you intend? I'm just trying to clarify.
>There's a HUGE difference between INCLUSIVE policies and
>EXCLUSIVE policies. Women fought for the right to be
>included in the process of American Government, and they
>won. They fought long enough and they won.
>
Have you asked yourself how they were allowed to say things
that were considered dangerous at that time? How do you expect other
people who hold minority opinions (such as gays today for example) to
express their opinions and fight for their rights if we do not allow
free speech (even if it is distasteful speech for many people)?
>What if the KKK fights long enough?
>
Let's assume they do. Let's say that they somehow manage to
get enough seats (51%) in the house and senate to pass a law which
prohibits everyone from speaking bad things about the KKK. They search
a few old Ytsejam logs and find your post about what jerks the KKK are.
They convince a judge that they need a warrant to search your home
computer and they find that you forgot to delete your sent folder
and you have a whole bunch of messages about what jerks the KKK are.
They arrest you.
But, you're smart. You take your case to the supreme court and
guess what... You win. Why? Because you have the freedom to say what
you want even if the KKK guys don't like it. The supreme court judges
are there for life for a good reason -- they aren't beholden to anyone
so they can make objective judgements (as much as possible).
Now, what if those KKK folks get a 2/3rds majority (which would
be even more difficult than the simple majority) in the house and senate
and they pass a new amendment which abolishes the first amendment
(free speech)? 3/4 of the states also ratify it. Well, then you and
I are in trouble because we both think the KKK are jerks and have said so.
One of the reasons we need to maintain free speech for everyone
is because someday our opinions might be the ones in the minority.
We do have to take the bad with the good though, otherwise it's not free
speech anymore.
Of course, the above example is unlikely. But, free speech is
still very important today. Just ask most minority groups (such as
gays, ethnic groups, smaller religions) who might otherwise be left with
no voice if larger groups had their way.
No one person or group can be left to decide what speech is
distasteful or dangerous for all others. Even if we could trust Bill
Clinton or Congress to make decisions about what we are allowed to
say, do you want to bet that we'll be able to trust every president and
congress after this? The writers of the constitution didn't want to
make that bet and I don't either.
Do you really think you could speak out against the government
and its policies without a second thought (question the leaders and the
laws as you have done here) in a country like China? Many people who have
spoken out too loudly in countries like China are in jail or are dead
even though we both would think their statements perfectly reasonable.
The first amendment protects against such actions by the government and
we should not remove that protection.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:07:30 EST