Re: aufweidersehn, * grave$

[Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>]

At 08:05 AM 5/2/96 UTC, Skipjack Sally wrote:

>Noticeable about capitali$t graves, he dissmisses EVERY attempt
>to censor racists with a "who cares," "there just a bunch
>of weinies," "if you can be heard *somewhere* without being
>arrested, it's not censorship," etc.  He seems to imply that
>merely because racists are powerless, we are not worthy of
>protection.  I suppose if you have enough money, you can
>PURCHASE your freedom, if not, tough shit.

You do not need protection against speech, you need protection against ACTS.
Speech in and of itself does not harm anyone.

>We free-speachers don't need a character who defends the 
>prosecutors when racists are sued or imprisoned in Canada,
>UK, and Germany, merely for printing racist leaflets.

You claim to believe in free speech, but only for yourself it seems.  You
seem to desire the punishment of some speech, but not others.  Who decides
in this case? You? Me? The amorphious blob known as "Government"?

I prefer the racists being able to speak in public because it gives people
the chance to counter their lies with arguments.  Truncheons just create
marters and sympathy for their cause.

Actually, I believe that the people who have been crying for the racists to
be silenced have given them more free advertising than they could possibly
get on their own.  In the black and white thinking patterns of today, and
the resistance to authority that is growing in the world, cries for
censorship make those groups more attractive to those looking for a "cause".
---
Alan Olsen -- alano@teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction
        `finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key 
                http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ 
  "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon