From: "Mark Levenson" <markl-AT-levenson.com>
Subject: Re: Never Again...
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:18:07 -0800


> At 03:13 PM 12/2/96 -1000, D Scott Woods wrote:
> >I vote 'yes' . Freedom of speech, no matter how disgusting the speech
may 
> >be, is the most important - especially in cyberspace! say NO to
> >censorship.
> I agree.  I was especially bothered that artists were supporting this. 
We
> are, after all, the first to be silenced.
> --Jim Maroon

One of the inevitable problems with mail group discussions is the need to
offer concise posts, especially when discussing an issue that could be
developed across hundreds of pages.  My apologies, therefore, for the
simplications that follow:  
As a writer, I have a personal and professional stake in the preservation
of free speech.  Free speech needs to be protected even when -- especially
when -- it conflicts with the preferences or views of the majority. This
discussion did not originate, however, with a general point about free
speech, the failed censorship provisions of the Telecommunications Act,
congressional attempts -- largely successful -- to muzzle NEA artists, or
anything of the kind.  It originated in a discussion about the White Power
usenet groups.  I hope that the people who are defending this form of "free
speech" have actually seen the speech in question. White Power groups are
advocating the commission of criminal acts, including conspiracy to murder,
and murder (those being separate crimes).  If the individuals in these
groups communicated the same information in person, over the telephone, or
through the U.S. mails, free speech would not be an issue;  they would be
open to both criminal and civil liability.

I hope that the defenders of this "free speech" would at least be opposed
to white supremacists acting on their conspiracies to murder.  But to
defend their discussion while opposing their action (i.e., to say "it's all
right to talk about killing niggers and kikes and fags.  go ahead and plan
those crimes and whip yourself into a frenzy -- but then, just don't do
it."), well, that's a bit like Claude Rains condemning the gambling in
Humphrey Bogart's club in Casablanca -- as he pockets his winnings.

Free speech absolutists have a point when they say that any infringement of
free speech makes it easier to impose further infringements.  It is a
potential danger.  But it has to be balanced against the very real danger
posed by hate speech, and which has already cost people their lives.  For
example, Aryan Nations leader Tom Metzger was found guilty for hate speech
directly inspiring the murder of Mulegata Sura (an Ethiopian) in the
Pacific Northwest.  Further, free speech absolutists may do themselves a
disservice by their shotgun approach:  by fighting every restriction, no
matter how reasonable, they may generate such animosity in the general
community that it becomes tougher for them (and the rest of us) to defend
the rational political speech that we might all agree needs defense.

These are extremely complex issues and almost everyone in the discussion
has some right on his side.  Should the U.S. legal system treat the
Internet the way it treats other communications media?  Given the
international scope of the Net, are legal restrictions -- esp. a single set
of legal restrictions -- even possible?  Given the technological
distinctiveness of the Net, is any control possible?

A final point to emphasize the complexity of the issues and to suggest a
matter of personal responsibility:  Although the response to the initial
post included cries of "no censorship!" the initial post -- asking for a
"no" vote on a proposed usenet group -- never asked for censorship.  The
constitutional protection against censorship is protection against
GOVERNMENT-IMPOSED restrictions on speech.  Publishers and (to a   limited
extent) broadcasters are free from government-imposed censorship but are
free to decide for themselves what they print or broadcast.  While
analogies between the internet and traditional media are inexact (e.g., is
a usenet group a publisher, is it a communications carrier like a phone
company, etc.?), a case can be made that private individuals and
organizations involved with the internet have the same rights to
self-censorship that they have in traditional media.  Newspapers don't have
to publish the rantings of white power groups.  Broadcasters don't have to
give them air time.  You and I don't have to distribute their materials or
patronize those who do.  Internet Service Providers don't have to carry
those usenet groups (under the law, that is.  from a commercial standpoint,
ISPs would certainly get howls of protest if they dropped groups for the
reasons discussed here.).  As private citizens, we are not required to
endorse or facilitate hate speech in the name of anyone's civil rights.  I
urge all of us to act from a sense of personal responsibility the next time
we have the choice to inhibit or facilitate hateful and criminal speech.

Mark Levenson
markl-AT-levenson.com


  --- Personal replies to: "Mark Levenson" <markl-AT-levenson.com>
  --- List replies to:     puptcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  --- Admin commands to:   majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu