[WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism

Fri Jul 2 19:08:48 UTC 2004

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 Anti-Semite and Jew (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.

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 is 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.

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)

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.

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.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040702/27f20f20/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------

---
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