[LINK] Academics branded 'anti-US over FTA research'

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:49:23PM +1000, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> >there's a long history of oppressive fascists exploiting the left to
> >gain power. the fact that they can mouth a few lefty-sounding sentiments
> >doesn't mean that they're left wing.
> 
> And Stalin and his ilk, and the Republican government in Spain, and 
> the various leftist regimes across the globe throughout the 20th 
> century were better?

stalin was a lefty?  since when?

the real left in spain (the anarchists) were betrayed by Stalin-supported
communists.

calling yourself communist doesn't make you "left wing".

> When Kim Beasley espouses a Bill of Rights as part of his electoral 
> platform and finally implements it, then and only then will I accept 
> that the ;left is in any way differentiated from the right in 
> Australia ... viz-a-viz free speech.

huh?  what on earth makes you think Beasley is any kind of lefty?

> >> >i don't, however, dispute your right to say it. you are entitled to
> >> >be wrong, entitled to be misguided, even entitled to lie through your
> >> >teeth (although there may be social and/or legal consequences to being
> >> >caught out at the latter - perjury, fraud, deception etc are, or can be,
> >> crimes).
> >>
> >> Social, legal and other consequences  are irrelevant to free speech
> >
> >mostly. laws against specific kinds of speech that don't directly
> >involve other crimes (e.g. fraud, misleading advertising, etc) are
> >definitely a free speech issue.
> 
> I didn't say they weren't an issue.

then they're not irrelevant to free speech, are they?

> >for example, laws against 'hate speech' are bogus and oppressive.
> >actually beating the crap out of someone is a crime. directly inciting,
> >instructing, inducing or ordering someone to harm or kill a specific
> >person or group of persons is, or can be, a crime depending on
> >circumstances. but merely being offensive and saying "i dont like <some
> >particular group> because of <some complete load of bullshit>" is not
> >and should not be a crime.
> >
> 
> And where is this going, if I may ask?

nowhere. it was a response to you saying that social and legal
consequences were irrelevant to free speech.


> >> probably be regarded as an attack on free speech.
> >>
> >> As soon as derogatory terms or phrases like 'all right thinking
> >> people' or 'liars' or whatever are aired you attack the Man rather
> >> than the argument or debate ... and could very easily be criticised
> >> for stifling freedom of speech.
> >
> >no, that's bullshit. that's the language of censors. the right to free
> >speech means that not only can i say whatever i want, i can say it in
> >whatever manner i want.
> 
> Only if you phrase your argument in terms of the existing debate.

no, in any terms.

speech is not free if it is restricted only to particular styles of
speech, same as it is not free if it is restricted only to particular
viewpoints.


> >the right to free speech also does not include the right to demand
> >respect for your opinions.  in fact, feeling or expressing contempt
> >for objectionable viewpoints is entirely consistent with free speech.
> 
> Contempt for objectionable viewpoints is fine, contempt for the 
> speaker is not. 

certainly it is.  but it's an orthogonal issue to that of free speech.

i.e. contempt for the speaker neither adds to nor detracts from free speech.

> Ad hominem attacks debase the argument, the debate, 
> the ideas you are arguing about and the attacker ... as well as the 
> attacked..

irrelevant to the concept of free speech. free speech does not care
whether the speech/debate is "debased" or not, same as it does not care
whether the speech is true or not. all that matters is that there is an
unfettered right to say it, whatever it is.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)