anonymous bigotry is morally wrong as is religious persecution … but legal … the 1st amendment must be maintained at all costs.
so how does one go about the task of fighting bigotry and intolerance? … lets start with language.
language has always been used to negatively influence the masses, conning them into commiting genocide, and other atrocious crimes against humanity, stirring the people into emotionally driven hate based fervor resulting in death and destruction … it has also been used to educate, and to free people from the bonds of physical and mental slavery. How can one be free to think, to grow mentally and intellectually, and to use language as a tool for communicating and or expressing ones ideas and thoughts if there are restrictions placed upon what can be said and or thought ?
what happens to learning?
who would be the judge of what is allowable?
what speech was allowed under hitlers rule?
From a “modern” thinker, in todays frame of reference, the words used by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels almost undeniably fall into the catagory of anti-semetic hate speech … but to the workers of the socialist party and the German citizens who supported Hitler and his rise to power, and subsequent war and genocidal efforts, his words were common sense to be followed unquestionably by the masses, any thoughts or ideas to the contrary were considered heresy, and the authors or speakers of those thoughts were either exiled, censored, or shot.
would we be able to have this conversation today if freedom of speech were regulated?
looking at this issue from a certain frame of reference, one could ask if this train of thought and/or discourse leads to thoughts of dissent, and the questioning of laws and the types of restraints and control upon which should be placed on human society and its use of language.
could this concievably fall into the category of hatespeech against a certain type of facist govenment? could one be labeled an unlawful enemy combatant for uttering these words, and arrested and executed by the powers that be ?
and while i do concur that to allow hatespeech is absolutely amoral, but, i must say, to limit ones freedom of speech is also amoral.
which of course brings one around full circle to the problem of hatespeech, the results of hate speech, and what to do about it …….
one idealistic solution would be to combat hatespeech with anti-hatespeech or peacespeech. turn the tide of the collective mind/consciousness of society against hatespeech. using language against those who propagate hatespeech could be a potentially effective weapon in the “fight”, draw the hatespeechers into public and show the fallacies in their words and logic. in this way, freedom of speech is maintained, and collectively hatespeech is made to be an unacceptable part of society.
for example the word “nigger” .. it is no longer acceptable to use this word, one may be legaly free to use it, but out of respect, the general population doesnt, at least not publicly, and the media has shunned the word. the word nigger has been made socially unaccepable as a part of the struggle to free the “black” people from the bonds of slavery and social injustice.
even the ever popular and powerful word “FUCK”, with its so many wonderous uses, is typically not used in church … but as soon as one leaves the holy parking lot …. “HOLY FUCKING SHIT!!!”
personally myself, in my own humble lowly opinion from this little keyboard in my infantessimally small point in the ever expanding universe, believe that this is an issue of personal and collective responsibility, one to be regulated by the thoughts and actions of the people as individuals and the resulting whole, not a legal issue, not one to be enforced by law or those in control. keep the law out of my head. keep thoughts free, keep discourse free, keep art free. freedom to think, write, love, and even hate should be free, BUT (behold the underlying truth) i do believe that people must be held responsible for their actions. it is ok to hate white people, but its not ok to kill them on the basis that they are white, and for one to spread hatespeech about white people, and propaganda to convince others to hate white people, is ones legal right, but, the act of propagating hatespeech is irresponsible, amoral, and detrimental to society just the same, and should be looked down upon, and corrected by society, in the same manner that it is the responsibility of the community to raise the child as well as the parents.
i would hate to imagine a world where my thoughts and ideas become objectified, commodified and then regulated as such by law. what would i do ? what would i think ? what of my innate desires and morbid visions of death and destruction and violent fantasies of dismembering bodies and putting the pieces in mason jars and diposing of the parts along highway 95 by tossing the jars out the window every few miles ? would those thoughts become illegal ? or would the publication of those thoughts become illegal on the grounds that some dumb asshole might take my ideas to heart and acually act out what i have said?
not only do i digress, but i have encountered another “thought circle” back to the question of personal and collective responsibility … i apologize.
one must then wonder what would descarte might have said had he been placed under these legal linguistic restrictions ? “i can only think using the language that has been given me, therefore i am only what i have been permitted to be by those who have been given control over what thoughts and words i am allowed to use?”
just a thought … and a few questions ….
[...] of Scientology on Saturday March 15 in the most recent major day of protest against the human rights abusing practices of the Cult of Scientology. It’s hard to estimate attendance, especially given that many people came and left during the [...]
[...] bloggers out there—and to everyone else for that matter. Read up on Scientology’s misdeads and speak out against them. And as with any civil protesting, keep it civil. Do not break any laws, [...]
[...] The Cult of Scientology is a widely distrusted, disliked and unrespected organization, and for good reason. As such, they have motivated the establishment of a broad base of protesters. One of the most [...]
[...] For an abridged summary of some of the crimes of the Cult of Scientology, click here. [...]
March 13, 2008 at 1:28 am
It’s not everyday that we get to celebrate the birthday of a man who realized his aspiration to get rich by starting up a religion.
Too true.
But Ron is dead, and he got what he wanted.
I doubt any consideration of what would occur after his death influenced any of his decision-making.