On 07/02/2008, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
That's presupposing that the aim of the law should
be to suppress
everything that anybody might regard as racist, even if entirely
unintentional.
Actually no, the aim of the law seemed to be to prevent people from
using the *claim* that something was entirely unintentional as an
excuse when it couldn't be absolutely proved that it was deliberate,
even though it might seem to be highly likely to be the case that a
particular action that had the effect of disadvantaging a particular
group was taken intentionally.
That's presupposing that "not disadvantaging
minorities" is a
consideration that trumps everything else, including things that some
others might regard as of greater importance such as free speech and
free inquiry.
There are usually restrictions on free speech in many countries,
including the UK, against 'inciting racial hatred' and so forth, so
yes; and I find it difficult to believe that this is wrong.
Which is not to say that I think that these images do that, because I
certainly do not.
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.