--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote:
Chris Mahan recently wrote:
The reason why I say that hate speech is not
destructive is that
speech itself is strictly communicative.
which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I
assume you
mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express
something else,
but has not force in and of itself.
Your assumption was incorrect.
If this is what CM means, he
is
mistaken.
It was not.
Some propositions are indeed expressive or
descriptive
(e.g., "I
feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the
proposition
describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house.
In both
cases the proposition is about something else).
Both are communicated.
But some
propositions are
performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions.
Of course. Speech and/or Logic 101.
J.L.
Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I
name this
ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that
accomplishes
the naming.
Technically, it is the recording of such name in the naval records,
coupled with the incribing. The monarch in question is simply issuing
an order, which may or may not be obeyed (generally is though).
I could have thought to myself to name my wallet "Bob" and not said
it out loud. For me, though, without having "said" or "spoken"
anything, the wallet is now Bob. However, for that to become known
among others, I would have to say it, either in writing or out loud
with my voice.
I could just have painted the ship's name on it, without saying
anything with my mouth. This should still communicate the name of the
ship to the world (or at least to the maritime authorites).
Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it
is the act
of
saying so that constitutes the bet.
Establishment of a contract. If the contract was not communicated to
the other party, the other party would have no knowledge of it,
therefore there would have been no contract, thus no bet. It implies
that the other party hears it, and therefore there was communication.
Or when someone says "I
promise," it
is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise.
I was promising something to myself when I read this. I did not speak
it out loud. Is is not a promise still? Communicating a promise to
another is establishment of a performance contract. The promise may
exist independently, this the communicating of the promise is
dissociated from the creation of the promise.
You can
call
these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important
is a
major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements
like
"the house is blue."
If I thought very hard that "__ethnicity__ are __expletive__ and
should be all exterminated and the world would be a better place",
yet did not actually say it, it would still color my thoughts,
actions, and attitudes. Just because something is not said does not
mean it does not have a real impact in the world.
The question is, what kind of proposition is
"Jewish concentration
camps"
(meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is,
both.
Did saying "Jewish concentration camp" all of a sudden make a jewish
concentration camp come into being?
It
is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in
the
case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false).
Truth and falseness of a statement is discovered through examination
of fact, not emotional posturing.
But I believe
it is
also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is
hate
speech, and destructive.
This is where I disagree. Just saying this does not make it come into
being.
Lemme try: There is a hot blonde in my lap... Blink... Nope, didn't
work.
Some people have suggested that what makes it hate
speech is its
potential
to incite physical violence.
Likewise the Declaration of Independence (US) had a definite
potential to incite physical violence, and did, causing a war and
thousands of deaths.
I think this is valid
I do not.
(and a valid
legal
principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the
U.S., or
may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the
threat could
lead to physical violence).
Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler, is in thousands of libraries all over
the world.
But the argument of "hate speech" is
that
performative statements are in and of themselves violent.
Some may be, yes.
One
example is
the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be
purely
verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason).
Yes.
This was
established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision
Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate
speech
legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web). Another is the
power
of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon
and
Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women
sexual objects).
In 1942, US courts were still enforcing segregation.
On stigmatism: I went to high school. No need for a court decision to
state the obvious.
The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two
grounds: first, it
considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a
general
right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best
response to
hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly,
or just
plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should
limit
free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever
anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen.
The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we
have to
listen? And,
more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which
anyone
spews hate speech? I don't think so.
Incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled (lawyers can dig the ref out)
that restricting venue of speech is an infringement on the exercise
of free speech. As long as a forum is public, they are allowed to
speak.
Granted, you may not want to hear it, yet you are not allowed to
prohibit others from exercising their rights.
And I think that anyone who construes this argument
against hate
speech on
Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation.
Wikipedia
is a community, not the state.
Yet operates within the legal jurisdiction of the State of Florida,
and of the United States of America.
Just because a person has a legal
right to
do something does not mean we are obliged to collude.
Of course not. You may, at your leisure, recluse yourself from the
proceedings.
For example,
people
have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on
Wikipedia.
Actually they do. Others have a right to remove such advertising.
They do not have a right to prohibit others from removing the
advertising.
Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only
mislead
people as to the nature of our project.
The same goes for hate
speech.
Does it?
If
I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead
to the
improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it. But I
don't
think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only
appropriates our
space to hateful purposes.
I personally think that it does serve a purpose. Two, actually.
First, it allows other wikipedia contributors to gauge the
personality and background of fellow contributors. Second, it puts a
different light on many subjects, which then encourages more in-depth
research and analysis of the matter being contended.
Actually, there are many others that come to mind: It allows for
lively discussions on wikipedia's stances, as well as demonstrates to
the public at large that we are not Jimbo's Yes Men.
=====
Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com
chris.mahan(a)gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail