[WikiEN-l] Blocking Nazis is not about blocking for mere insults

Mon Feb 21 16:57:22 UTC 2005

-------------- Original message -------------- 
> You are absolutely right. The choice is clear. Freedom of speech, 
> especially of speech we find hateful, is infinitely more important than 
> sanctimonious attempts to create a controlled "classroom" environment. 

I've never been a big fan of free speech or considered it a basic right.  The protection of threatening political free speech appears to be a necessary evil (like government) for democracies to work.  There is a lot of threatening hate speech on wikipedia, from the Nazi hate speech at issue here, to those advocating drug regulation, compulsory education, conscription, progressive taxation of the rich, etc.  If all threatening political hate speech were banned, only libertarian political speech would be allowed.  Some even argue that the red baiting of the 50s was wrong.  Yes the black listing, guilt by association and innuendo were wrong, but can democracy really afford be tolerant of political parties with which the 1st election they win would be the last free election you would ever have.  

The problem with drawing the line at threatening speech is where do you draw the line.  As someone who views most of my fellow voters (and myself) in the United States as mass murders for having supported FDA drug regulation (I have since reformed my voting), I have learned to tolerate hate speech or at least to meet it head on in the world of ideas.  Perhaps threatening political speech should be both legal and rare, to adopt an analogy from Clinton's stance on abortion.

   -- Silverback