I appreciate your eloquent and measured approach to a topic where the
latter is often absent. I will withhold comment about the specific
situation with WHEELER because I have not read through the material, nor
applied the due dilligence that would be required before a valid comment
could be made. The important points do indeed go beyond this specific
person's claims.
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Reading various people's response to my charge of
anti-Semitism (on my
talk page and here) I realize that some people either do not
understand my basic assumptions about hate-speech. Since this matter
extends beyond WHEELER or the early National Socialism talk page to a
matter of general policy, I want to clarify my assumptions here.
It's in that spirit that I would respond.
1) hate speech is categorically different from
offensive or uncivil
remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain
level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately
offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks
are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive
role in an argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do
not think they apply to hate speech. ... Anti-Semitism is not wrong
because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level;
anti-Semitism attacks a whole group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by
nature. .... You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose
something that is wrong.
It is important to look at many of these incidents in context. A person
who has made remarks that may be interpreted as anti-semitic needs to
have opportunities to recognize his errors, particularly if those
comments come in the heat of editorial battle. Last year here in Canada
an important leader in the First Nations community made some obviously
anti-semitic remarks in the course of a single speech. The outcry was
immediate. As a result he lost his job, and his credibility in the
community was shot. He soon after publicly apologized for his remarks.
That should have been the end of it, but militant Jewish organizations
continue to insist that the matter be continued in the criminal justice
system. These very vocal and very public organizations manage to
promote a public image of Jews as completely insensitive and
unforgiving. The same can be said of the Nazi hunters who continue to
seek punishment on old men 60 years after the fact, often at great
expense. There comes a time when these events need to be put behind us
so that everyone can go on with life. Anti-semitism was pandemic before
WWII, and not just in Germany. The shock of the Nazi crimes resulted in
a lot of good will toward Jews, but I'm afraid that that good will has
been rapidly eroding.
2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This
is because facts
are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. ... To then
talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual
claim we can research or question. There is no point in even
questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the
only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them
not as individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes
such correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for
correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender. ...
When I read the reference to "Jewish concentration camps" on the
previous message, it was unclear whether the writer meant camps "for"
Jews or "by" Jews. Your last comment above looks almost like support of
racial profiling. (Blacks commit more common crimes; all Arabs are
potential terrorists, even after the mistaken early claims in connection
with the Oklahoma City bombing, etc.)
Hate speech can be based on transplanted facts. There is adequate
reason to be critical of the activities of the Israeli state, but there
is no basis for extrapolating those facts into a basis for criticising
all Jewry. Unfortunately, those Jews who are quick to condemn
anti-Israeli claims as implicitly anti-semitic do a disservice to their
cause. The true anti-semites feel that their position is bolstered.
3) There is a difference between what one feels or
thinks, and how one
expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an
apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I
don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell,
I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it
were possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just
government, but society or community) regulates how people express
there feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know
that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say
what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well. ...
Of course it's up to the members of a community to regulate these
things. When governments and other bureaucracies get involved, the
people lose that control. On the other hand I get worried when people
cry out that they want to see justice done. I am concerned that the
philosophy that underlies their sense of justice may be somewhat less
than scholarly.
4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think
an open society
should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have
pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree.
But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here.
We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable
byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high
level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary
byproducts of the editing process. We should certainly encourage
controversy. But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate
speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet
for hate speech. .... Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same
thing as state or federal law.
Intolerance has its extremes, and we do have one other well-known Jewish
Wikipedian whose cries of anti-semitism have become legendary. Not all
such cases are as clear as he would have us believe. Some otherwise
well-respected Wikipedians can easily wander into forbidden areas, but
that is not enough to brand them as bigots. The person's entire pattern
of behavious is far more instructive.
Ec