<html>
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. Obviously if
people disagree with these assumptions, they will disagree with my call
to ban WHEELER. My assumptions by the way are based on personal
experience but also my understanding of U.S. Hate Speech laws (not that
Wikipedia is obliged to follow them, but that they reflect the thinking
of many other people) and Sartre's book <i>Anti-Semite and Jew</i> (not
that Wikipedia is obliged to follow French existentialist thought -- I
just think it is a thoughtful book, not just about anti-Semitism but
about hate speech in general). Here I explain what I assume at some
length, because my point is not about some specific conflict between me
(or AndyL) and WHEELER; it is a general point of which WHEELER's comment
happens to be one example.<br><br>
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. For example, if someone writes
"Sl, you are a shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an
uncivil and offensive remark. But I would not call it hate
speech. Nor would I call it anti-Semitism. WHEELER observed
that just because a dog barks at a Jew doesn't make the dog
anti-Semitic. Fair enough. Just because I am Jewish does not
mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic. But if the dog barks
"Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that <i>is</i> anti-Semitic.
Here is the difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the
second attacks me as a member of a class or group of people. For
this reason I respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic
remarks. The point is not that I feel hurt or injured. These
are personal feelings and I have always strived not to let personal
feelings affect my involvement in Wikipedia. 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. By the way, it is for this reason that non-Jews can and
ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites can oppose racism against
Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against Arabs. You do not have to
feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong. In fact,
WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care what WHEELER thinks
about me at all. I simply oppose hate speech and anti-Semitism in
all forms because it is wrong.<br><br>
2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because
facts are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. It is a
fact that some Jews have been murderers. But are they murderers
because they are Jewish? That they were (or are) Jewish is almost
certainly incidental to their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone
through a red light). It may very well be a fact that several or
even many prison guards in the Soviet Union were Jewish. But they
weren't camp guards because they were Jewish. 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. I just
think it is obvious that in this particular case WHEELER was not making
an empirical claim subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to
attack (I think Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence,
for those who do not think this is obvious)<br><br>
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. WHEELER, for
example, can think whatever he wants. But to participate in a
conversation, there are some things he won't say. And to
participate in a community there are some things he shouldn't say.
Where we draw the line is a separate matter that I address below -- here
I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER wrote on one of our
pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should concern ourselves
with.<br><br>
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. God knows, there are plenty of other outlets on
the internet for that. For the same reason, there should be no need
for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try to
prosecute WHEELER for hate speech. What WHEELER wrote may very well
be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. I just don't want to see
someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. Wikipedia
policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law.
<br><br>
Steve<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Steven L. Rubenstein<br>
Associate Professor<br>
Department of Sociology and Anthropology<br>
Bentley Annex<br>
Ohio University<br>
Athens, Ohio 45701</html>