From: kotta@acs2.bu.edu (Joseph Merlino) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.correct,alt.activism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,soc.college Subject: Re: To Burn a Speech Code: An MIT Bonfire Protest Date: 18 Nov 1993 23:56:31 GMT Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA Lines: 86 Message-ID: <2ch23f$t13@news.bu.edu> References: <2ccopa$83f@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <1993Nov17.220405.7795@oracle.us.oracle.com> <2cg1tp$j7g@news.bu.edu> Originator: kotta@acs2.bu.edu In article , hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes: |> kotta@acs2.bu.edu (Mista Kotta) writes: |> |> >|> The fear of what others might call reasonable is real but that is |> >|> where the battle should be fought. |> |> |> >---> Sorry, Wade, but this sentence is incoherent. |> |> OK. Let's try, I understand the reservations people will have over letting |> someone else judge what is "reasonable". You simple don't trust others. I |> think that the place to fight against or for speech is on the reasonable |> front. |> |> The stupid examples put forth so far include criticing a scientific |> paper which is infinitely reasonable or telling a "darker hued" |> individual having trouble in integration to give it up and play sports |> instead. With You, Mr. K, I will debate but not with the race baiting |> bigots. I believe you feel as I do about them. |> |> I don't know of anyone who argues against the fire in a theater case. |> Such action is patently unreasonable. It has the intent and effect of |> endangering lives - causing harm! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |> ---> Guess again. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, the "fire" anaolgy was wrong when it was introduced. Homes used it to justify suppression of an anti-war pamphlet. And it is still wrong now. Shouting "fire" in a theatre is only a problem if there *is no fire*. If there *is* a fire, it's a duty! Falsely shouting fire is therefore best understood as an act of fraud, and it is on that basis, and that basis alone that it should be prosecuted. |> This is where the whole notion of hate speech comes in. Do we want to |> protect the right to intentially and effectively injure others. The |> answer is, we have historically attempted to allow the speech while |> minimizing its effect. Yes, we let the Klan have its rally but we |> are careful about the place and time. |> ---> Free speech means nothing if it is not speech that can have an impact. Do you think that we should restrict our speech to the innocuous? Let me tell you something: if it wasn't for "hate speech" (against the British) we never would have had a revolution. Think about this: "We must fight. I repeat it, sir, we must fight!" -Patrick Henry Look, Wade, this guy's advocating violence toward a group on the basis of their national origin! We'd better suppress him right now! Or at least restrict his time, place and manner! |> So there is a hint at my view of where and how you deal with hate |> speech. ---> By suppression, apparently. |> |> Where and how do you draw the line, after the theater cliche. ---> Didn't the Reagan administration teach us that you shouldn't govern by cliche? |> --Wade _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ / --Mista Kotta / "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; kotta@acs.bu.edu / when it dies there, no constitution, no law, (std disclaimers apply) / no court can save it." -Learned Hand / T/_/H/_/I/_/N/_/K/_/_/A/_/T/_/_/Y/_/O/_/U/_/R/_/_/O/_/W/_/N/_/_/R/_/I/_/S/_/K/ obmst3k: "Milk: It does a body DEAD!" -Tom Servo "You're not fully dead unless you're ZESTfully dead." -Crow T. Robot Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.correct,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,soc.college From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) Subject: Re: To Burn a Speech Code: An MIT Bonfire Protest Message-ID: <1993Nov19.005230.10568@midway.uchicago.edu> Followup-To: alt.censorship Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System) Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago References: <2cg1tp$j7g@news.bu.edu> <2ch23f$t13@news.bu.edu> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 00:52:30 GMT Lines: 25 In article <2ch23f$t13@news.bu.edu> kotta@acs2.bu.edu (Joseph Merlino) writes: >In article , hines@socrates.ucsf.edu (Wade Hines) writes: >|> I don't know of anyone who argues against the fire in a theater case. >|> Such action is patently unreasonable. It has the intent and effect of >|> endangering lives - causing harm! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >|> > >---> Guess again. As Alan Dershowitz has pointed out, the "fire" anaolgy > was wrong when it was introduced. Homes used it to justify suppression > of an anti-war pamphlet. And it is still wrong now. Shouting "fire" > in a theatre is only a problem if there *is no fire*. If there *is* > a fire, it's a duty! Perhaps that's why Holmes's example *was* that of falsely shouting fire in a theater. Holmes rejected the "intent and effect" theory shortly after his decision in Schenck. Followups to alt.censorship. -- ted frank | "FIRE!" "Where?" "It's all right -- I'm demon- thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu | nstrating the misuse of free speech. To prove the u of c law school | it exists. Not a move. They should burn to death standard disclaimers | in their shoes." -- Rosencrantz & Guildenstern