|
Coming in rather late here, but what the heck? I understand Dana's stance in light of modern European history. While this country took part in WWII, our people and our country were not nearly as ravaged by the results of Hitler's Hate Machine as the Europeans were.
Hitler's was a clever evil, coming at precisely the right time and place, and worded so as to find support from the German people. You can hardly compare his words with a random insult about the people of Iowa that finds no resonance with those who read it.
Try this insult instead: The US is going to hell thanks to all those lazy N- 's and Mexicans who sit around all day on welfare and bleed the honest, hard-working taxpayer dry.
Now that I have your attention...
I am actually on the side of free speech and if that means free insults then so be it. It's just that I can understand why Dana and many other Europeans might feel as they do.
When my right to free speech means the right to incite hatred, one starts to walk a fine line. The trouble is who gets to define what "inciting hatred" consists of? Sure ethnic slurs would fall into that category, but what about someone who says "You white republicans" or "you black democrats"? One could easily make a case for outlawing statements like those as well if you are going to outlaw ethnic slurs or words which inspire hatred between the races. There we go down that slippery slope which ends with those in power censoring the words of those who are not.
As unpaletable as it may be, I'll accept your right to make racist statements, publish pornography (although I draw the line at kid and snuff porn, sorry), and make the "Anarchist's Cookbook" available in every public library because freedom of speech is one of the most valuable freedoms a person or a people can have. When the censors take over, the people have lost.
|