A lot of the impeachment crowd might be classified as hating bush, and the government might put them on a list saying they are terrorists even. I agree with Talia that once the government starts classifying what type of message you have we have stepped onto a slippery slope. Obviously we all agree these folks are abhorrent, as well as all the Aryan racist douchbags, but should the law draw the line? If so, how do you define that line?

TAK: That depends on how the law would define nut-job. Who gets to make that distinction?

I have two uncles who are / were drug addicts and Neo-Nazis. One of my cousins is an out-and-out Hammerskins wannabee, one is a closeted KKK wannabee. My grandparents on that side of the family denounced racism, but were incredibly strict Dominionist Southern Baptists. My mother is mostly-mainstream-Baptist.

My father’s just a product-of-Mississippi-in-the-fifties-and-the-US-Army-in-the-1960′s bigot, despite being one-quarter Native American (not that he knew until we had genetic marker tests run long after I became an adult – his father vanished when he was three).

I was exposed to a wide array of human shit and intellectual vomitous mass, while growing up.

I wasn’t exposed until age eight – until then, my parents were stationed in Italy, and my father was always at work.

In addition to the white-anglo-saxon-protestant-supremacist relatives, I had the lucky chance to be forced to attend the exact same public schools my mother attended thirty years previous – now, filled to bursting in the 1980′s with hispanic immigrants and african-americans, who all called me “cracker”, “pendejo”, “whitey”, “the man”, etcetera. Not that I can imagine I might have any sort of break had they known I was 1/8 native american, either. But I got to know the politics of La Raza, where parents refused to discipline their children for disrupting class because they were “milking the cow”. This I know because I was standing by my father’s side when he demanded to know from his mother why Alex beat the crap out of me every day for getting A’s.

Later in life I worked at a school for underperforming kids in Dallas. The principal and John Wiley Price both called me “white boy” to my face in front of my colleagues and the kids; Kids whose sole professed wish was to be rappers or basketball players, and refused to participate in education because it was “a game for dopes” and they were “fighting the system” – by chanting Ludacris. Not that the teachers were on track to help – between listening to music while taking the attitude of babysitting and actively pushing Dominionist propaganda in class, and a small handful of kids (or even one) being able to disrupt an entire fifteen-child classroom, the school’s model was probably doomed to failure for the kids – as it seems now to have been designed as a concentration camp for the benefit of Dallas’ standardised mandatory statewide test’s scores.

Who decides what’s abusive? What’s neglect? Who really is anti-bigot / enlightened, and who is abusing the appearance of progress for the sake of gaming others? Who makes these decisions? Who draws the line? How do you test?

Humanity is rife with bullshit notions, and they’re not special to any one class, creed, culture, colour, country or code. What single test may be applied equally to all of them to stand the line between free speech and criminal activity? How do you get everyone to agree that such a standard is fair?

If I’m missing intended sarcasm, please ignore this post, or better yet, make that WOOOSH noise they do on Slashdot.

If not, you’re re-enforcing the point everyone is making. That one liner is a straw man: no-one is saying that Antinous should have less freedom of speech than anyone else.
The point people are trying to make is that it’s scary when the mods on an otherwise very (VERY) reasonable and well spoken board can be so short sighted when it comes too close to home.
I understand the reasoning behind Antinous’ point, and understand the emotion. Regulating freedom of speech is not the way. In the parlance of our times, that one will turn around and bite you on the ass. Gay pride parades are gone. The Onion? Propaganda! Who decides where to draw the line? Democracy -> tyranny of the masses, etc etc etc.

I think there are more than enough ways to have these people shut up. Hate speech is forbidden, right? Get them locked up.

The fact is that – pragmatically – the moderators of this forum must use their judgement and not be wedded to a hard-and-fast, well-defined policy on what will and won’t be published.

Comment #37, among others, from antinous is what I am referencing:

“… but I’ve run into plenty of other hatemongers and have cheerfully ripped up their signs and trashed their propaganda while they gaped at me. Actions have consequences and I seem to be one of them.”

I am presuming that these people did not freely /hand/ him the signs they presumedly were carrying – for him to rip up. I wish I could trash the Palin/McCain signs I pass every day because I’ve read (and you know this) the GOP Platform and know that they’re racist, sexist homophobes explicitly forwarding a social agenda of oppression by hijacking the government. Those signs are on private property and it is therefore a /crime/ for me to act on my strong impulse, for me to /censor/ the speech of another. I’m not committing a /crime/ until and unless I have no other recourse to immediately defend myself and my family.

Then, the fact that he states that free speech, in the way it is being discussed herein, is an adolescent fantasy for privileged white heterosexual males;

He equivocates Phelps’ message with assault in several places , among them “In the real world, you trivialize Fred Phelps and he inspires people to go out and kill fags. That’s what really happens …” – despite that no prosecution against him for incitement to violence has withstood judicial scrutiny.

By claiming that Phelps’ message inspires people to go out and assault and kill homosexuals, and that Phelps is directly responsible for that, and that he deserves censure for that – he is (and I am speaking from no small amount of academic authority and experience) issuing a statement that is the moralist and legalist equivalent of “women dressing that way inspires men to rape and kill them and they therefore deserve to have burqas required for them.” – it is a fallacy in both situations, it is bigoted and wrong in both situations, it is oppressive in both situations.

The principle of freedom of speech – with the sole criteria for drawing the line being incitement to a crime – is important to be preserved for /everyone/, even unpopular and offensive speech. Society must demonstrate a present and pressing need to deny someone’s speech – based on the clear and reasonable foresight that such speech will actually destroy our society – that it is an incitement to a crime.

Phelps repeats a literalist reading of a 2000-year old compilation of a 3000+ year-old religious tradition. Forcibly stopping him from his speech is no different than stopping the vast majority of the Southern Baptists all the way to mainstream Christians to Re-Incarnation Buddhists and Hindus who claim that homosexuality will prevent enlightenment / cause karma accumulation / causes suffering in /this/ life. Phelps’ clear /delight/ in his message is his own moral failing but is not in any way justification for censoring him – else you must censor every single person who says “Good News, Christ Died for your sins to keep you out of Hell!”. You must censor the kids that write fiction about their high school being invaded by terrorists and shot up.

I’d like to quote the entirety of Ani DiFranco’s “32 Flavors” at this point but it is my understanding the lyrics are copyrighted and I don’t have a license. In stead, I will merely refer you to the avenues by which you might listen to – or read – her poetry for yourself(ves), and merely claim Fair Use for a two-line cite:

“I will never try to give my life meaning
by de-meaning you.”

Personally, I think that if I or anyone else is /forced/ or intimidated to never utter or publish something that someone finds offensive – then it removes any and all meaning behind my supposed “choice” to refrain from uttering/publishing it, from someone else’s “choice” to not utter/publish it. I reserve the absolute right to freedom of speech because my expression encompasses the void as well as the delineated. I perceive others by what they leave out as well as what they put forward.

From the perspective of abnormal human psychology, I /want/ to know that Phelps exists and what he’s saying because if society prevented him from speaking, I expect that he’d act instead, and there would be no way to see warning signs and keep an eye on him.

Mostly, I want him (or anyone else with whom I disagree and/or find morally abhorrent) to be frustrated to the point of stepping over the line and actually committing or advocating a crime. I can give him the finger all day long but that just doesn’t satisfy me.

We get to die so that you can make a point. Thanks.

Positively medieval. and thus very retro but passe at the moment. Not allowed unless you can really up the mountains (Eg Bountiful, British Columbia).

They can say whatever silly ass shit they want on their website or standing outside a military base or anywhere else I can flip them off, but stay away from the funeral. I don’t see that as unreasonable.

Hell, civil respectable protest of the war outside a funeral home or on the route of the procession would even be acceptable. You could say something like, we share your grief and are working to stop this war. Some families may even find this type of protest comforting. Not every family thinks their soldier died for a good cause.

But this shit is outside the pale.

The point is that until and unless they actually commit or advocate a crime, their speech – however unpopular it may be – is still just speech.

I want him to throw a punch because he’s not getting a rise out of people. I don’t want him to pre-meditate it. And I want him to feel so unashamed of expressing his opinion that he does it in public, with all eyes watching – and not in a back alley.

So no protest of any kind should be held anywhere near the funeral of a private citizen? How do you decide by law who is private and who is public? And how do you define civil respectable protest then, if you allow it en route? It seems that this still implies someone deciding which groups can protest and which cannot. How can you define that line for all to live by? Is it just their behavior? Other than their hateful language and signs, these people seem to be behaving non-violently. Maybe it’s just the word “hate” that we don’t like. No protest with the word hate in it? Will that do? What if we want to say “Down with hate?” Do we say certain inflammatory words are not allowed in a protest and make a list of them?

There has been much discussion here of late about inflammatory language. I agree with George Carlin on this. It’s not the words but how they are used (although I understand why certain words are banned from internet forum discussions in most cases.) Lenny Bruce deserves some credit on this as well. Why empower these words in themselves? Wouldn’t it be wiser to remove the power from said language?
____

Mmmmm chopped Kalamari…

Perhaps the ability should be added to communicate one on one here through the Profile, to forward messages to email while masking the real addresses and allow people to block if they like. That way, people who get to know each other here and want to get to know each other even more closely may do so. Just an idea.

TOAST451@112: JARDINE@85 beat you to it. Skimmed over most of the previous comments, hunh?

Intention is what makes murder different from manslaughter. For hate crimes, though, there’s an extra distinction – besides the crime being committed, it’s a threat against everyone in the target demographic. So long as threats are illegal, that justifies treating them more seriously.

I just believe when it comes to funerals we could agree to a truce out of deference to the grieving families. I don’t believe that is tooo hard a line to draw.

I am concerned about: “I have issues with his expressed intent, and the expressed willingness to exercise – by whim – a power to modify or ‘depublish’ the speech of others”

You use “whim”. Can you please show me where you have received this impression from in any of Antinous’ postings?

OF course it is a delicate balance, but it is a balance that our government already makes!

Why have none of the free speech defenders on this thread taken up Antinous’ point that in fact the US government limits speech all the time?

As one of his examples: the law prevents adults from describing graphic sexual acts to children. Why is that not protected by free speech? even if they don’t touch the kids? it’s only speech, it’s not an act, right?

think about why it might seem okay to limit that speech – does it have something to do with the unequal power relation between adults and children? does it have something to do with the fact that speech itself is an act that can affect the listener?

then consider the power imbalances in society -which means the disproportionate risk of violence and harassment– facing gay people (RIP Matthew Shepard, black people (RIP James Byrd, Brandon McLellan, & Tarika Wilson) and women of all races (RIP Enora Calrdwell, stay strong Mildred Beubrun) – and consider why a speech act evoking and condoning that is harmful. That’s what hate speech is about.

it is not an easy judgment to make – but I don’t think we should shy away from making it. And let’s not kid ourselves that we already have made it in certain contexts (again with the children, with fire in a crowded theater, with defamation) – so it’s worth discussing our reasons for the lines we draw and trying to figure out how they can best be drawn to allow society to flourish and not be overridden with hatemongers.

I have no issues with Antinous’ speech. He has every right to say that I live in a fantasy world.

Along with his rights, there are responsibilities – and one of his responsibilities is as a moderator on these forums, with an attendant power that extends solely in scope as to the freedom of expression of others.

I have issues with his expressed intent, and the expressed willingness to exercise – by whim – a power to modify or ‘depublish’ the speech of others.

There is an implied social contract inherent to any forum moderation responsibilities – with the power to guide the conversation comes the responsibility to not do so for one’s own ends. This is not (merely) my expectation – it is apparent to anyone who reflects upon the nature of the task.

My end of the contract, as a dutiful citizen of any community – is now and always has been to point out when and where such happens or is likely to happen.

I have never apologised for it and never shall.

I speak not to appeal to a particular law or code or regulations, but to the human nature that we all share – the notions of Reason. I speak to the reputation of Antinous, and to his behaviour, and how such can follow him and colour his interactions with others and – whether he is officially acting on behalf of BoingBoing or not – how it will colour the interactions of others in the commentary on BoingBoing.

This is a hopeful reminder to Antinous that – though he may not be aware of it – he does wield power (an elite power) in a community. He should take care that it is only ever seen as being done for good reason and not for fickle.