Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/09/26/adls-brian-marcus/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:51:41 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> CC: politech@private I see. Despite its support for additional criminal penalties, the ADL doesn't want to "censor" people who disagree with them. It's not a first amendment issue. It's all an issue of contracts for Internet service. They just want the result that there are no channels of communication available to people who disagree with them. Now I understand. John -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:16 -0400 From: Lizard <lizard@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <433839AA.8030902@private> A brief translation: "Despite our best and continuing efforts, the United States still won't out-and-out ban speech we don't like. Thus, we concentrate on bullying and intimidating ISPs which have the temerity to allow people to speak freely. In addition, we work with European countries with more...ah...'enlightened' attitudes towards free speech in order to make sure THEY can seek to impose their rules on US based companies, such as France trying to force Yahoo into imposing French speech laws on American servers or face legal liability in France." Lizard predicts: The next tactic in this battle will be to file lawsuits against anyone hosting any site which is even tangenitally linked to a hate crime. There's more than one way to burn a book, and the ADL knows 'em all... What you oppose, you become. Of course, I've been singing this song for years: http://www.mrlizard.com/tcrime.htm (Written in 1996 or so...) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:11:44 -0400 From: Matthew Tarpy <tarpy@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> >Director of Internet Monitoring >Civil Rights Division Does it strike anyone else that these phrases seem somehow...incompatible with each other? --matthew -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:33:26 -0700 From: David Brownell <david-b@private> To: politech@private, declan@private References: <433839AA.8030902@private> > We believe that ISPs have the right to enforce their ToS and AUP when people > violate them. Yet if the ToS and/or AUP violate basic civil rights, then surely that itself must be seen as a big problem. Likewise when the ToS/AUP/etc is being selectively enforced, to the effect of penalizing certain points of view. (For example, political speech critical of management's positions may be deemed a violation, while speech supporting them encouraged.) If the argument is that "corporate rights" must trump those of real people, many of us fundamentally disagree. Fundamental human rights are just that; and systematic efforts to deny such rights are criminal, whether they come from corporations, governments, or individuals. - Dave -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ADL's Brian Marcus replies Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:19:14 -0400 From: Lamb, Christopher <CJ.Lamb@Montgomery-Ins.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, 1st) I know titles don't convey a true understanding of a person's position, but doesn't "Director of Internet Monitoring" sound a bit ominous? Not particularly germane to the debate, but there you have it. 2nd) How can ADL understand "...the complexities of freedom of speech" while simultaneously advocating legislation that curtails free speech? I agree with Mr. Marcus' argument that if a business violates an ISP's ToS or the AUP, then that company should face the consequences (as with any business that doesn't abide by agreements with it's partners). However, what if these companies signed up with an ISP that didn't have an AUP that banned hate speech? Would he then go after the company? What may be offensive to one person is someone else's righteous cause, and their message is going to reflect that. You can legislate speech about as well as morality - you can't. That's the point I believe Mr. Marcus is missing - he can't understand the complexities of free speech yet advocate curtailing anyone's speech (as long as that speech isn't forced on someone). It doesn't work that way. Regards, CJ Lamb -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net Censorship Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:29:28 -0400 From: Frank Ney <n4zhg@private> Organization: Darwin Prevention Society - We Keep Evolution From Happening To: BMarcus@private, declan@private CC: wvl@private, smith2004-discuss@private, lrtdiscuss@private, LibertarianEnterprise@private Ref: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/09/26/defamation-league-criticized/ >*Sigh* > >Nothing like having one's work misrepresented. You only think you're being misrepresented because you have more faith in government than any rational person should have. It saddens me to have yet another example of a person failing to learn from the Holocaust. If your pet law is implemented, I guarantee the first person prosecuted isn't going to be the owner of a neo-nazi web site or a "holocaust denier" as you so fervently hope. It's going to be someone like me, who dared tell Taking Scissors Away that their proposed passenger screening system was a fraud designed to punish political dissidents, as well as having to stones to call George Bush and his drinking buddies Death Eaters (find someone in your organization who reads Harry Potter if that appellation confuses you). Your legislation proposes to punish people for thoughtcrime, a concept that comes right out of _1984_. How long will it be before anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican is investigated, tried, and convicted under your so-called "hate crime" law? Will we be sent to insane asylums, as was done in the USSR to anyone who didn't cleave to Communism? That's the path your efforts are taking right now, and it's the reason why folks are up in arms about it. Free speech includes speech you don't like or don't agree with. Nothing says you have to listen to it. However, passing laws against it is the wrong move and weakens the entire human rights paradigm. If you can pass laws against one form of speech, you can ban all speech. It WILL happen. BELIEVE IT. Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV -- Killin' Stealin' Whorin' And thems the good guys. "Serenity" The Movie based on the Fox TV Show "Firefly" Opens September 30, 2005 at a US theater near you http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/index.html?fuseaction=tools.invlink&u=n4zhg&linkID=36 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:02:28 -0400 From: Randall <4whp@private> To: Dave <dave@private>, BMarcus@private CC: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <433839AA.8030902@private> <2EE1E829-1964-4296-8935-D10DBC0E728F@private> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 14:20 -0400, David Farber wrote: > I advise your readers to look at these materials so they can better > understand that we are not trying to "destroy the First Amendment." > And if they can cut through the hyperbole evidenced below and read our position > they can see we understand the nature of the Internet, the complexities of > freedom of speech and respect that there are different approaches to > online hate across the world. We do not believe in attempts to legislate > hate out of existence, but do think that when hate motivates a crime there > should be enhanced penalties, and that freedom of speech is vital but companies do not > have to host hatred. Precisely where in the US Constitution is the federal government granted the power to criminalize speech which is disliked by a certain powerful interest group? States have laws against threats of violence, but the federal government? Criminalizing "Hate speech"? -- My aim is to agitate and disturb people. I'm not selling bread, I'm selling yeast. -Miguel de Unamuno, writer and philosopher (1864-1936) -------- Original Message -------- I read the ADL pages. I see nothing there that disproves the claim that "hate crimes" are essentially "people thinking bad things". Thought is not, and cannot be, a crime, and anyone who tries to make it one is an enemy of everything America stands for. (Don't publish my name or email if you republish this.) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] ADL's Brian Marcus replies to Politech over hate crimes, Net-censorship [fs] Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:26:06 -0300 From: Stephen Downes <stephen@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, stephen@private References: <433839AA.8030902@private> Declan McCullagh wrote: > By way of background, here's a cogent argument against "hate crime" > legislation: > http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-tl051199.html There is no doubt that it is an argument; whether it is cogent is a matter of opinion. Let's examine it. 1. "All of the violent acts that would be prohibited under the proposed bill are already crimes under state law [therefore] federal legislation is unnecessary." Quite so. Violent acts are already prohibited. But the intent of hate crime legislation is to counter acts or aspects of those acts that are not violent, and therefore, not covered under existing law. This first argument therefore misrepresents the nature and purpose of hate crime legislation. 2. "The so-called 'Hate Crimes Prevention Act' is not going to prevent anything. Any thug that is already inclined to hurt another human being is not going to lay down the gun or knife because of some new law passed by Congress." This argument presumes that intent and willingness to commit a violent act is a static and unchanging characteristic of a person, impermeable to external influences, which is a dubious assumption at best. Moreover, it considers only the existing population of thugs and murderers and concludes (somewhat tautologically) that they would be thugs and murders no matter what. It does not contemplate the possibility that new thugs and murderers may be created by the commission of hate crimes, nor even that this is typically the intent of hate crimes. One might characterize a hate crime this way: it is an attempt, through act or deed, to convince someone else to commit a crime of violence. Even if this attempt has a low probability of success, if exercised on a large enough population the effect becomes almost certain. Therefore, such attempts do in fact, in some situations, cause mayhem and violence. Even if the people convinced to undertake acts of violence would have done so in any case, it is possible (indeed, likely) that hate crimes would convince them to commit more acts of violence than they otherwise would, and to commit more serious crimes of violence. Moreover, there is ample evidence from around the world - from Nazi Germany, from Rwanda, from former Yugoslavia - that such attempts will also convince previously peaceful people to commit their first act of violence. 3. "The whole concept of 'hate crimes' is fraught with definitional difficulties... If the athletes had been the sole targets of the school shooting, such a crime would not have been considered a hate crime." The specific example cited by the author is misleading. No external agenciy attempted to convince the murderers to target jocks. Moreover, there is no evidence that the murderers expected their targeting of jocks to result in other people targeting jocks. Nor is there any evidence of an organized campaign targeting jocks. Nor, given existing social beliefs and prejudices, could such a campaign have any reasonable chance of success. That said, were any of these conditions fulfilled, then advocacy of violence against jocks would indeed be a hate crime. What makes the current list of subjects - people of given race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc - the subject of hate crime legislation is the observation that they have been the targets of organized attempts to incite violence and that these attempts have been successful in sufficient numbers so as to warrant especial mention. There is nothing inherent in the characteristic motivating hate that makes it the subject of hate crime legislation. You cannot examine the 'state of being a Jew' or 'the state of being black' and conclude thereby that we should have special laws countering the advocacy of hatred against these groups. The evidence for the need for such laws is in the crimes themselves - people target blacks, people target Jews, for whatever reason: this is empirically observable and measurable. And were similar observations made with respect to hate against athletes, similar laws would be required. 4. "Proponents of hate crime legislation believe that such laws will increase tolerance in our society and reduce intergroup conflict. I believe hate crime laws may well have the opposite effect. That's because the men and women who will be administering the hate crime laws (e.g. police, prosecutors) will likely encounter a never-ending series of complaints..." Hate crime legislation already exists in nations around the world, for example, in Canada. While complaints about the administration of the law do exist (as they do regarding the administration of any law) there is no evidence that increased intolerance results. Indeed, most people regard nations such as Canada, which has hate crime legislation, as more tolerant than nations that do not. So empirically, there is little or no support for this contention. 5. "Hate crimes legislation will take our law too close to the notion of thought crimes. It is, of course, true that the hate crime laws that presently exist cover acts, not just thoughts. But once hate crime laws are on the books, the law enforcement apparatus of the state will be delving into the accused's life and thoughts in order to show that he or she was motivated by bigotry..." This argument misrepresents the constitution of a hate crime as being 'Act plus thought'. The suggestion is that, over and above the act, what is being punished is the thought. The author also suggests in this argument that we may descend a slippery slope such that only the thought, even without an attendant act, is punished. But a hate crime is not merely 'act plus thought'. It is, rather, an act intended to 'send a message' where the purpose of the message is, on the one hand, to instil a climate of fear in the target group, and on the other hand, to convince others to commit the same act. The purpose of purpose of looking at books, magazines, computer files and the like is to detect instances of that message. And it is important to understand part of a hate crime over and above the act of violence is not merely a thought; indeed, it is not even merely the expression of a thought. A hate crime is an instance of what is commonly known as a 'speech act' - that is, the person in question does not merely hold or express a view, but rather, employs communication (including voice, print and computer messages) in order to commit an act (specifically, to convince other people to commit similar crimes). Speech acts are not rare and mysterious; they are everyday events, easily identified. When a person says 'I do' at a wedding, he is commiting a speech act - by virtue of uttering some words, he is entering into a contract. A general who commands his troops to 'Fire!' is similarly committing a speech act. By virture of uttering the words, he is causing an event, in this case, the firing of a gun by a soldier. A person who yells 'Fire!' in a movie theatre is once again not merely uttering an opinion, he is acting in such a way as to cause people to rush to the exits. Speech acts have consequences, and (through jurisprudence and precedent) people are morally and legally responsible for the consequences of their speech acts - that is why we have legislation concerning alimony, war crimes, and criminal negligence. A hate crime is a speech act where the utterer intends the act to be successful, that is, to result in crimes of violence against the target of the hate. In many cases, a hate crime also involves an element of violence - the utterer is speaking through both words and deeds. That is why merely punishing the deed is not enough. Part of the act consists of uttering the words, and the commission of this speech act is an offense for which the criminal must be held responsible over and above the act of violence. To wrap up... We know that people can cause hate - and therefore, crimes of violence against target groups - by expressing hate. History is filled with examples. And we know that some people express such hate with the specific purpose of causing such violence. To fail to take note of and address such acts in criminal law is tantemount to taking the point of view that certain crimes of violence are acceptable in society, and that the causing of such crimes not against the laws and morals of society. It has been my observation that nations that do not have, or do not enforce, hate crime legislation are nations that, both internally and externally, breed more hate and more violence. We find in such societies not only an increased level of mistrust and holstility, not only an increased tendency for violence and strife, but also very commonly a tendency on the part of that society to export instances of its prejudices and hate, to too easily allow itself new types of ate and new expressions of hate. Such a country, for example, is able very easily to dehumanize the populations of other nations in which it is involved, to refer to all inhabitants of such nations, whether freinds or foe, as 'gooks' and to treat them as less than human, to fail to distinguish between members of a population, to too easily slide into practices that involve the indiscriminate torture and killing of those inhabitants. For legislation, too, constitutes a type of act, and the sort of behaviour a nation fosters or prohibits in its laws, is the sort of behaviour it can expect, in the long run, from its citizens. -- Stephen Downes ~ Research Officer ~ National Research Council Canada http://www.downes.ca ~ stephen@private __\|/__ Free Learning _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 08:59:18 PDT