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. If this is what CM means, he is mistaken. 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). But some propositions are performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions. 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. Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of saying so that constitutes the bet. Or when someone says "I promise," it is the very act of speaking that accomplishes 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."
The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps" (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both. It is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false). But I believe it is also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate speech, and destructive.
Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential to incite physical violence. I think this is valid (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). But the argument of "hate speech" is that performative statements are in and of themselves violent. One example is the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason). 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).
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.
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. Just because a person has a legal right to do something does not mean we are obliged to collude. For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia. Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead people as to the nature of our project. The same goes for hate speech. 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.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@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@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail