Berandor said:
I don't think our countries differ from each other that much, I think many Americans hold to their absolute freedom of speech where it doesn't really exist anymore. You may still be a bit more lenient in most areas, but in some you are even stricter than other countries... it just isn't openly admitted because the right to free speech is one of the most important American beliefs.
True, and I agree wholeheartedly. I go further, however, in asserting that it is a truly dangerous state of affairs for the sake of idealogical freedom, which is why I oppose it.
The only difficulty with hate crime legislation is that it is frequently used in the U.S. (and I would guess elsewhere) for true travesties of justice. Take into account Pennsylvania State University's 1993 Student Eden Jacobowitz, a jewish student who told late-night revelers to
"Shut up, you water buffalo, I'm studying." He was charged with racist slur speech under the U-Penn guidelines for student conduct, because according to college Judicial Officer Robin Read, a Water Buffalo was a "dark, primitive animial that lived in Africa" - which goes to show the brilliant zoological education of the U-Penn Judicial Office.
Also take into account the hate speech practices of the Washington D.C. mayor's office, when an Aide resigned because of flack generated by his use of the word "niggardly" in a private meeting. His resignation was gladly received, more to promote the killing of the "issue" more than anything else.
Imagine if either of these were covered by actual legal statutes. Even if the allegations are as silly as dental plaster on wheat bread, if someone actually served jail time or was served a fine for these "criminal allegations", I would be beside myself. all one had to do in that instance was to lie and disinform, without so much as a single scrap of evidence, and someone was forced to resign from a politcal office.
Now, if in either of these cases a racial slur HAD been used, would it have been "right" to prosecute either legally or civically? It's a tricky line to walk when separating freedom of opinion from racial threat, if all you have is the threat.
In regard to the sensitivity of our society to student/teacher threats, the U.S. is far too sensitive to these issues in my opinion as well. As many members of this board could tell you (and they have when this topic arose once before), they or someone they knew as a student since the Columbine Colorado Massacre has been harassed unnecessarily by officials and law enforcement authorities. I understand the need for caution, but becoming an in-practice totalitarian society is not the solution.
In a recent rant on
www.peldor.com, The Adventurers writer Thomas miller wrote (
http://www.peldor.com/news/2002_03_07.html) that
"Realistically, you can have "freedom from" or you can have "freedom to." You can have freedom to walk downtown at midnight, but you might get mugged. You can have freedom from getting mugged, but the cost might be curfews, or armed police in the streets, or severe penalties for people who have mugged previously. You can't have both freedoms at once, though, because they cannot co-exist."
He is correct in the crux of his argument. Drawing the line between "free" and "not free" is a civic responsibility that should never be taken lightly by any citizen regardless of government. Where you draw the line is determined by the society of your nation (group of people bound by a common culture, geography, and experience).
I will keep watching this thread, but I will likely cease replaying because like Forrest Gump, "That's all I've got to say about that."
I guess I can't put the thought mroe clearly than this. Whether a person is for or against hate crime or anti-racial legislation, the burden is still upon them to be sure that any freedom of public expression they give up for a good cause is worth giving up.
