Transaction

j"19HxigV4QyBv3tHpQVcUEQyq1pzZVdoAutM²From tcmay at netcom.com Tue Jul 6 16:07:36 1993 From: tcmay at netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Date: Tue, 6 Jul 93 16:07:36 PDT Subject: "Let's kill all the lawyers..." Message-ID: <9307062308.AA22680@netcom.netcom.com> "What do you call the killing of those lawyers in San Francisco last week?" Answer (you knew this was coming): "A good start." The discussion of free speech and political correctness is apparently not welcome by some on this list. I guess the usual religious debates about which mail reader is better are what we're supposed to talk about. Well, I'm a member of this list, too, and issues of censorship and free speech are more interesting to me--and to some others, I suspect--than the intricacies of "MH." To each their own. Learn to use your "delete" key. (I agree that discussions of libertarianism vs. liberalism, etc., are the bane of the Net, and that we have been fortunate in avoiding the usual pitched battles between these camps on this List. My comments about censorship of speech, photos, etc., were not intended to provoke such a political battle.) Ironically, even as I type this, I am watching CNN and a special report on a "trial balloon" to ban anti-lawyer remarks! Seriously! Harvey Saferstein, President of the California State Bar, is explaining how "hate speech" laws can and should be used to limit the bashing of lawyers, the portrayal of them as good targets (he cited the lawyer being the first to be eaten in "Jurassic Park" as an example of the "atmosphere of hate" surrounding lawyers), and "inciting to violence." He specifically cited the killings in San Francisco last week as a reason to classify such speech as a "hate crime." No word on whether Shakespeare's "First, let's kill all the lawyers" would've gotten him 10-20 in the Tower of London. What is happening to free speech? What has happened to "Sir, I disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."? Now of course such a law is not likely to pass, or be upheld. (Saferstein is actually not lobbying for a _new_ law, but for extension through the judicial system of existing "hate crime" laws to included any "class-related" jokes and insults. A move other groups are already trying.) In a way, I am cheering this, as it can only end up trivializing and undermining the whole concept of "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Real crimes, including trespass to burn crosses on people's lawns, and the like, can and _should_ be prosecuted, but not "hate" crimes. (If such laws were applied uniformly, instead of just against so-called "white rights" groups, then most "minority" organizations, which preach hatred of "honkeys" and "hets," would be shut down.) As John Gilmore pointed out a few years back, most of us are breaking laws every day. If the government can attach penalties based on our political views, then dissidents can be targeted selectively and given sentences based on their alleged "hate crimes." (Imagine how the Black Panthers or Malcolm X could have been harassed even more aggressively if their "hate" could have been used to increase punishments for otherwise minor crimes? That they were harassed, 20 and 30 years ago, is beside the point. Folks who advocate "hate crime" laws should reflect carefully on how such laws may someday be used against them.) -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay at netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. text/plainbinary(5f21b78ebdcd6476b65b69ae45e9a998f7408073