"Let's kill all the lawyers..."

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

"What do you call the killing of those lawyers in San Francisco last week?"


Answer (you knew this was coming): "A good start."


The discussion of free speech and political correctness is apparently not
welcome by some on this list. I guess the usual religious debates about
which mail reader is better are what we're supposed to talk about. Well,
I'm a member of this list, too, and issues of censorship and free speech
are more interesting to me--and to some others, I suspect--than the
intricacies of "MH."

To each their own. Learn to use your "delete" key.

(I agree that discussions of libertarianism vs. liberalism, etc., are the
bane of the Net, and that we have been fortunate in avoiding the usual
pitched battles between these camps on this List. My comments about
censorship of speech, photos, etc., were not intended to provoke such a
political battle.)


Ironically, even as I type this, I am watching CNN and a special report on
a "trial balloon" to ban anti-lawyer remarks! Seriously! Harvey Saferstein,
President of the California State Bar, is explaining how "hate speech" laws
can and should be used to limit the bashing of lawyers, the portrayal of
them as good targets (he cited the lawyer being the first to be eaten in
"Jurassic Park" as an example of the "atmosphere of hate" surrounding
lawyers), and "inciting to violence." He specifically cited the killings in
San Francisco last week as a reason to classify such speech as a "hate
crime."

No word on whether Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers"
would've gotten him 10-20 in the Tower of London.

What is happening to free speech? What has happened to "Sir, I disagree
with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."?

Now of course such a law is not likely to pass, or be upheld. (Saferstein
is actually not lobbying for a _new_ law, but for extension through the
judicial system of existing "hate crime" laws to included any
"class-related" jokes and insults. A move other groups are already trying.)

In a way, I am cheering this, as it can only end up trivializing and
undermining the whole concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Real
crimes, including trespass to burn crosses on people's lawns, and the like,
can and _should_ be prosecuted, but not "hate" crimes. (If such laws were
applied uniformly, instead of just against so-called "white rights" groups,
then most "minority" organizations, which preach hatred of "honkeys" and
"hets," would be shut down.)

As John Gilmore pointed out a few years back, most of us are breaking laws
every day. If the government can attach penalties based on our political
views, then dissidents can be targeted selectively and given sentences
based on their alleged "hate crimes." (Imagine how the Black Panthers or
Malcolm X could have been harassed even more aggressively if their "hate"
could have been used to increase punishments for otherwise minor crimes?
That they were harassed, 20 and 30 years ago, is beside the point. Folks
who advocate "hate crime" laws should reflect carefully on how such laws
may someday be used against them.)


-Tim May
--
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement
Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.