Conference quark::human_relations-v1

>His paper claims that Orientals
>are more intelligent than Caucasians, who in turn are more intelligent than
>Blacks.  He then claims that this is an indication of a variance in the level
>of evolutionary advancement between races. He has backed his claim by providing
>physiological, psychological and sociological data which includes brain
>size, crime statistics, IQ scores, average income, average education level,
>long term memory and control of sexual urges.

	 Okay, I'm probably going to get a lot of heat for this,
	 but....

	 These are facts that this guy came up with after much study.
	 Are you telling me, Kris, that because the study was based on
	 the differences between the races that its descriminatory?
	 What is the study had been based on blue-eyed people as
	 opposed the brown-eyed and green-eyed?  Would the study be
	 just as invalid?  Facts are facts.  I look at this study this
	 way...it helps us to know where we need to concentrate our
	 efforts to make the world an overall better place.  I find it
	 a very heartening study indeed to know that there is a race
	 that is more "advanced" than mine...I know who I should study
	 to make myself better.  I don't at all find it offensive to
	 be told that another race is more advanced than mine...as long as
	 there are facts to back it up--and ways can be found to
	 bridge that gap.  I am sure, too, that there are standards of
	 measurement that this person did not use to show that blacks
	 are much more advanced in some ways than orientals!  

	 I find this study very interesting indeed!  And you won't
	 find a racist bone in my body.
	 
>I find televangelists offensive when they claim that "God has marked the wicked
>fornicators and sodomites with AIDS and herpes." (Ernest Angely actually said
>this) Yet they're allowed to get rich tax free.  Have any of them faced
>criminal charges for their points of view?

	 I find this very offensive indeed, also.  Fornication: sex
	 before marriage.  Egads!  I guess I am going to get
	 AIDS and herpes! This claim has no basis in fact and is
	 derogatory to the group of people mentioned.  I do not feel,
	 however, the above study, is meant to be derogatory in any
	 way.  I feel it is meant as a way of understanding the
	 differences that DO lie between races.  No one race is in any
	 way BETTER than another, but there are differences.

	 k

    

    The point is that the conclusions reached by the professor are based on
    complex socio-economic variables and that because certain trends
    appear in these variables the good professor concludes that there
    is an intelligence gradient accross the races.  Not only is that
    bad science but it's potentially harmful information.  The KKK are
    probably having a field day with this.
    
>    I do not feel,  however, the above study, is meant to be derogatory in
>    any way.  I feel it is meant as a way of understanding the differences
>    that DO lie between races.  No one race is in any way BETTER than
>    another, but there are differences. 
    
    I agree with you, Kathy. Partly. The study may not have intended to be
    derogatory.  The researcher may very well believe what he states.  But
    he has definitely placed a ranking on the races.  He states outright
    that the level of inteligence is lower in certain races.  That's not
    just pointing out a difference like Blacks have darker skin than
    Caucasians. 
    
    For example, the study states that the ratio of cranium size to body
    weight is highest amongst Orientals.  Since everyone knows that the
    brain is the seat of intelligence, the bigger the head, the bigger the
    brain, the smarter the person.  Bad science. No one has ever proved the
    correlation.  Read the Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. In this
    book the author takes us back to a time when the size of the cranium
    indicated the net worth of a human being.  19th century research was
    full of this type of study.  Men had bigger heads than women, Whites
    had bigger heads than Blacks, Europeans had bigger heads than anyone,
    scientists had bigger heads than criminals. 
    
    Back then learned men used to judge each other by the size of their
    hats, like guys checking out what their team-mates are "packing in
    their jocks" in the shower stalls.  Science of this type is bad news. 
                                                       
                                                                          

    in re .3
    
    In re head size. One of the greatest geniuses (male) of the 19th
    century, was found - after his death - to have an extremely
    small skull. Doesn anyone recall who he was?
    
    Bonnie (who has forgotten and can't remember where she read it)

    a couple of points...
    
    "facts" and what one concludes from them... or hypothesizes... are
    two quite different things.
    
    e.g., 99.9 % of hard drug abusers drank milk as children....  Does
    it therefore hold that milk drinkers will become hard drug users?
    
    
    Unfortunately, free speech isn't free speech if unpopular or even
    racist views are barred expression.  Just one of the problems that
    comes with freedom.
    
    
    Last note... the science of modern sociology had its roots in the
    work of apologists for slavery in the 1800s.  In attempting to justify
    "the peculiar institution" these early social scientists created
    work that led to more valuable things.
    
    R.
    

The base note deals with three separate topics.

As to the U of Western Ontario professor, his claim that it's "a
valid scientific endeavor" is probably correct. His conclusions,
however, have little to do with his findings. 

For instance, I believe that

	In Toronto, Blacks make up 3% of the population and account
	for 35% of the criminal charges laid by the city.  Orientals
	make up 9% of the population yet account for less than 1% of
	the crime. (Ottawa Sun)

is probably true. However, the good professor's conclusion, linking
these facts with differing intelligence levels, is unacceptable. 

I would answer the question, whether universities should allow such
studies, with an unequivocal "Yes". I would add, though, that they
should allow publication ONLY after evaluating these studies as to
conformance with good research practices. Needless to say, unfounded
conclusions should be reason for rejection of such "research". 

------------------------

As to the nazi, his claims are based on outright lies. It must be 
difficult to understand how can anyone utter such preposterous lies, 
in the face of overwhelming evidence of the truth, until one 
remembers that this was nazi Germany's standard mode of operation:
the greater the lie and the more often it was repeated, the more it 
was accepted.

I think the base noter's question

	Again I found myself sitting on a fence.  His views were
	offensive to the extreme but how can a free society jail a
	man for speaking his mind

misses the point. The nazi is not 'speaking his mind'. He is
publishing lies. Free society HAS A DUTY to the law abiding
public, to jail this person. 

---------------

As to televangelists:

	...they claim that "God has marked the wicked fornicators
	and sodomites with AIDS and herpes."

Isn't this enough to make one an Atheist? If a God does exist, why
would He allow such creatures to deface His earth?


	Yet they're allowed to get rich tax free. Have any of them
	faced criminal charges for their points of view?

No. And that includes Jim Baker who got away with raping a young 
woman, as well as Jerry Falwell, who got away with raping the 
public.

I don't the answer.


-- Ron

    re .6
    
    The Nazi (although the man never claimed to be one) may have actually
    believed what he was preaching.  Can we really know?  
    
    The frightening part of the entire issue was that, because of the
    amount of press this person had recieved, he had gathered a following
    by the time he came to trial.  Had the press written him off as
    a wing-nut and not followed his trial in detail he would have been slated
    for oblivion
    
    The part which has me sitting on a fence is that all through history
    people with strange and often idiotic theories have been persecuted.
    But some of them were actually right (Galilleo, Copernicus, spherical
    Earthers).  Not to say that the Nazi may be right, but he does have
    a right to believe whatever he wants.  Does he have a right to say
    it?

RE: Comparing Blacks & Whites & Orientals

The problem with these comparisons is that there are too many differences
involved in the study to pin the cause on one factor such as race. While the
Blacks may have a higher crime rate, it may not be caused by their race, but by
poorer education, poorer jobs, discrimination, etc.  All these problems stem
from everyone, BUT the Blacks. In order to make a valid comparison, only one
factor can be allowed to vary (race) while the other factors (ed, jobs,
environment) must be the same.  The comparison must be made with "all other
things being equal".

RE: hat size

Intelligence is supposedly on the surface of the brain.  More intelligent
people have a more convoluted brain surface, not a larger brain,

RE: 99% of drug users drank milk

This statistic is backwards.  In order to say that milk causes drug use, you
would have to state that 99% of milk drinkers end up using drugs, not the other
way around. 

RE: Free Speech

People should be free to speak their mind in any fashion they wish.  We of
course have the option of not listening to them.

Jim.

    The late James Baldwin once said (and I must paraphrase because
    I cannot get the words *exactly* right) that if a man calls
    another by the name of "nigger" he needs to ask himself why
    he needs a "nigger".  (*****please**** don't pound me for that
    word-I *am* quoting)
    
    And I cannot help but wonder why someone feels the need to prove
    that certain races are more intelligent than others.  Would it
    not be better to emphasis their overall social/economic/political
    artistic development over time periods?  
    
    This probably is well thought out--its *too early* for my WASP
    brain to get into gear.
    
    What I am thinking of is a visit I once took to the Boston zoo.
    While there, I went into one of the buildings where a small part
    of the artifacts were of African origin.  The young man who was
    in charge gave me a talk of over an hour, pointing out the art work,
    its significance as art and it place in the social and religious
    life of the village, and the connections that the climate, food
    sources, etc. had on the social structure of the people.
    
    I came away from that session with the deepest awe of those people
    whom I now viewed in a totally different way.  I now have a fascination
    with African art and its significance in the overall social structure
    that I would have been oblivious to before.  
    
    What I am poorly saying is--to claim that those people, perhaps,
    were less intelligent because of their race is rediculous.  This
    WASP woman would die in that environment da*n fast because I would
    not have the intelligence to know how to survive.  And that is the
    value of intelligence to my personal way of thinking.  
    
    FLAME ON
    
    To build
    big buildings that shut out the sky and sun, and to rape the environment, 
    and to create cesspools
    of despairing humanity in slums, and to have cities teeming with
    homeless women and children for god's sake, and building and 
    storing enough
    bombs to kill 20x over...
    
    *does not say much for our super intelligence*
    
    FLAME OFF
    
   
    Marilyn
          

    Thanks, Mike... that was my point...
    
    R.
    

    
    	Often, things are proposed that are "proposterous" and as a result,
    no one wants to discuss them. They forget that "all things hang
    in balance" thinking that, if we concentrate on making the "House
    Beutiful" perception of society prevalent, all the "baddies" will
    just go away! Unfortunately, one cannot just forget the "other half",
    if one does not also wish to eventually experience it personally - The 
    great consequence of ignorance. It is for this reason that we *must*,
    on ocassion address topics that are somewhat uncomfortable for us.
                                                                        
    	Try proposing something like "Nothing is all_powerful; even
    God has discernable limitations" and watch just about everyone shy
    away from the conversation. Propose something even more outrageous,
    such as "The nazi's murdered all the Jews because the Jews didnt feel
    their *shame* the way the nazis did; they were jealous and couldnt
    deal with it, so they just killed 'em all" and watch your lips flap
    in the "proverbial vaccuum" - no one hears or wishes to comprehend
    such a thing...Let alone "discuss it". Such is the sensitivity of
    the general public toward considering such things.
    
    	No one ever mentions a level of confidence that necessarily
    must accompany any resultant claim. Even in this industry, someone
    will say "there's no difference" at a meeting *without* any expression
    of how sure they are in that statement. Are you 90% sure you're
    right? Not with *one* experiment you arent! You probably didnt even
    test for *significance* in the variability of your data; you were
    so quick to jump out and say "this is better 'n that". Otherwise,
    such statements of your confidence in what you say would automatically
    accompany your claimed result. Whenever someone makes such a unsure
    claim (no confidence given) I automatically consider it's probability
    of truth to be a coin toss. Maybe, Maybe not.     
    
    	All things considered, means a factorial analysis. I'll believe
    a claim when all reasonable factors have been cleared as significant or
    insignificant. In the base topic, I cant believe the result, without
    knowing the result of the analysis of the significant factors, at
    least one of which is "under what conditions did each representative
    of their race grow up in?" Doubting these to be identicle, I'd suspect
    that it's significant enough to render the study inconclusive.
    
    	The "childhood environment" factor was not cleared in the study,
    from what I can see. I think it's a reasonable one to consider.
    
    	Joe Jas
    
    	

    re: .1
    
    Hold on, here, kath.  First of all, there is a difference between
    "observation" and "fact"; scientifically, when the former is 
    independently repeated often enough, it is accepted as the latter
    (but even *that* doesn't guarantee that it is "reality" or "truth").
    
    Statistics are not necessarily "facts"; how the statistic is gathered
    has everything to do with whether it accurately reflects reality.
    But, even if we stipulate for this discussion that the statistics
    are accurate (i.e. "facts") whether or not they *prove* anything
    is another matter entirely.  
    
    If I look hard enough, kath, I'll bet I can find quite a few 
    grammatical errors in your notes, (mine too!); does this mean either 
    of us is "less intelligent" than others with better grammar?  When
    Irish people were first immigrating to Boston in large numbers,
    they constituted a disproportionately high percentage of criminal
    offenders.  Many (in power) at the time concluded that this "proved"
    that Irish people were inferior.  But if one studies crime globally
    and over the course of history, one finds that there is a one-to-one
    correllation between those who are "outsiders", "have-nots", and
    "immigrants", and those who are most prosecuted by the law.
    Invariably, those in power, are infrequently prosecuted as compared
    to those outside of the power structure.  Citing crime statistics
    as "proof" of intelligence is a notably flawed argument.
    
    Whether a particular set of statistical facts "prove" intelligence
    (or even relative intelligence) is highly debateable.  For the longest
    time, IQ tests were the standard of measurement; only recently have
    people (including our hallowed scientests) begun to suspect that
    perhaps what they measure is relative learning abilities only amongst
    people of certain cultures.  At this point in time, there is a good
    deal of scientific dissention around what "intelligence" is and
    how to measure it.  In such an environment, this particular scientist
    might be stating a "theory", but has hardly "proven" anything (other
    than the fact that he can get is theory published).
    
    re:  free speech  
    
    As far as I can tell (from Kris' description), the author hasn't
    violated the right to free speech, a right that's bounded by such
    things as libel law, and those governing inciting others to commit
    various crimes.  He may, however, have invalidated his right to
    be respected as a scientist. . .
    
    I have to disagee strongly with Ron (? .6) - I think a free society
    has a duty *not* to jail this individual.  Tolerance is the price
    of free speech and, assuming the individual has not broken the
    above laws, he hasn't, in fact (legally, provably) lied.  If 
    reaching an erroneous conclusion from a set of "facts" and then
    publishing that conclusion were a criminal offense, how many of
    us here *wouldn't* be doing time?  
    
    If tolerance is the price we must pay for a free exchange of ideas,
    then perhaps education is the guardian against abuse of this system.
    It seems to me that the danger to our system of free speech is a
    populace that routinely accepts "facts" and "theories" without
    question.  
    
    Steve

    Kris,
    
    Your initial entry states that the professor in question performed
    a scientific study that resulted in specific conclusions.  Are you
    questioning:
    1. Whether or not his study was valid?
    2. Whether or not the study should have been undertaken?
    3. Whether or not the conclusions reached were attributable to the
       data collected (e.g. were other factors not studied responsible
       for the seeming differences in the races)?
    
    I believe that #3 may be a reasonable explanation for many of the
    differences in "intelligence" by ethnic group.  That there are
    measurable differences is not a new hypothesis.  Because the question
    had been raised previously, an IQ test was written specifically
    for inner city blacks, placing things in the context of their
    vocabulary, and their socio-cultural backgrounds.  Not surprisingly
    the blacks came out way ahead in the study.
    
    I believe that there *could be* general tendencies in the physiological
    makeup of various ethnic groups, but that you are doing a disservice
    to ALL races to assume that these tendencies are hard and fast rules.
    As an example, I doubt than anyone would disagree if I say that
    Japanese people as a whole are shorter than Caucasians.  But if
    you encounter a Japanese person who is 7' tall, would you assume
    him to be short?  The same goes with intelligence and social
    development.  If there are ethnic differences, they should be
    understood, valued, and used in a positive sense to generally improve
    Humanity (not to put down someone who you believe to be inferior
    in some way).
    
    Aren't all of us superior to most people in some way, and inferior
    to most people in others?  Who Cares??
    
    Jack

    re .14
    
    I was questioning the border line between the right to free inquiry
    and the dissemination of dangerous information.  I don't know if
    the study is valid, but I do know that some of the data presented
    in support of the conclusion had no bearing on the argument.  We
    have a man claiming science using complex social-economic-psycological
    variables, and severe twists of logic and the only thing anyone
    hears is that the races are ranked in intelligence.  No one questions.
    
    Kris

	 RE: .13

	 I guess I need to clarify my note, then , eh?  I had the
	 unfortunate opportunity to reply before Kris gave more
	 information into the study.

	 What I am trying to point out is that studies like this are
	 GREAT and are a means by which we determine what areas we
	 need to place more efforts.  The conclusions what were made
	 by <whatever his name was> were HIS conclusions...I do not
	 know enough about the study to make MY conclusions, but they
	 would definately be different.  I am soley concerned with the
	 facts he came up with.
	 
>    "observation" and "fact"; scientifically, when the former is 
>    independently repeated often enough, it is accepted as the latter
>    (but even *that* doesn't guarantee that it is "reality" or "truth").

	 If you used this definition of 'fact' then nothing would be
	 fact.  What we observe is what we call fact..This apple is
	 red.  To me that is a fact, when in reality it is an
	 observation.
	    
>    But, even if we stipulate for this discussion that the statistics
>    are accurate (i.e. "facts") whether or not they *prove* anything
>    is another matter entirely.  

	 I never stated (did I?) that they proved anything.  I stated
	 they were a basis on which we could find out where to place
	 more efforts, and do more studies.
	    
>    If I look hard enough, kath, I'll bet I can find quite a few 
>    grammatical errors in your notes, (mine too!); does this mean either 
>    of us is "less intelligent" than others with better grammar?

	 Not at all, but I would say that someone with better grammar
	 was more intelligent than me a grammar.  Little do they know
	 I am a math wiz and they can't even balance their checkbook!
	 No one is better or more intelligent or more advanced in ALL
	 ways, just in some ways...We all have our bad points and our
	 good points.  Statistics like those presented in this study
	 can help us improve on those bad points.
	 

	 I think you miss what I am trying to say...I'm not very good
	 with words today! (must be friday!)

	 kath

    re .6
    
>    The Nazi (although the man never claimed to be one) may have actually
>    believed what he was preaching. Can we really know?

I couldn't care less. Lets try a 'fer instance': say I truly
believe that Johnny Carson is a national criminal and therefore,
advocate and incite people to do something unlawful to his anatomy
(such as separate certain of it's parts from the rest). Say further
that, as a result, people do him harm. Would I be responsible for
that harm? The law says "yes".

Should anybody care about my motives? Does it make any difference 
whether I actually believed it, or were simply trying to improve 
Mr. Letterman's position? The law says "no".

By the same token, that nazi is responsible, regardless of what he 
believes in.
    

>    The part which has me sitting on a fence is that all through history
>    people with strange and often idiotic theories have been persecuted.
>    But some of them were actually right (Galilleo, Copernicus, spherical
>    Earthers).

I do not believe any of these people advocated harm to anyone else. 
In your examples, people stood up for their right to independent 
scientific thought (you can add Pasteur and Curie to your list), 
which has nothing to do with the case.


>    Not to say that the Nazi may be right, but he does have
>    a right to believe whatever he wants. Does he have a right to
>    say it?

Not if it infringes on other's rights.


RE: .8


>    People should be free to speak their mind in any fashion they
>    wish.

Oh, really? Do I have the right to talk someone into lynching you 
because you raped their small sister (It doesn't have to be true. 
they don't even have to have a sister)?


RE: .13


>    I have to disagee strongly with Ron (? .6) - I think a free society
>    has a duty *not* to jail this individual.  Tolerance is the price
>    of free speech ....

Now, let's take a relaxed, calm view of this. I think another 'fer 
instance' is in order. Say someone took your two year old baby girl
and, just for fun (no malice intended) grabbed her by the feet and
bashed her little head against a tree (meaning no harm, you
understand, just for fun). 

Further, say that same someone killed your parents and used their
hair to manufacture pillow stuffing and their carcasses to
manufacture soap (nothing personal, you understand. Just good 
business practices).

Further, say that someone did this to 6,000,000 others of your
nation.

Now the offspring of this someone is here, with a declared intent 
of doing the same to you. They TRULY BELIEVE that this will improve 
the world. They indulge in all the propaganda designed to lead to 
your extermination. Are they within their rights? What about free 
speech?

>    If tolerance is the price we must pay for a free exchange of
>    ideas ...

Sorry, this is one 'idea' I am not tolerant off.

-- Ron

    re. .17
    
    Ron,  Jim Kiegstra ("The Nazi", I finally remembered his name) doesn't
    necessarily advocate bashing in the heads of little girl, nor does he
    necessarily advocate turning people into soap.  He's just saying that
    it never happened. 
    
    What this is is an insult to those who suffered.  There is a difference
    between insult and injury. 

    re: .16
    
    �	 What I am trying to point out is that studies like this are
    �	 GREAT and are a means by which we determine what areas we
    �	 need to place more efforts.  
    
    If by this, kath, you mean that the study points up places
    where more study is needed, I'll accept that at least to the
    degree that further studies may refute or support the observations
    this scientist made.  On the other side of the coin, however, most
    of these observations are nothing new and the crux of the study
    is the interpretation.
    
    �    What we observe is what we call fact..This apple is
    �	 red.  To me that is a fact, when in reality it is an
    �	 observation.
    
    Observation may qualify as "fact" to you kath, but in the scientific
    method, it is unacceptable.  A blind person observing your apple
    doesn't make the same observation.  Nonetheless, we say that the
    apple's redness is a "fact" because a great number of independent
    observers make the observation of "red".
    
    Again, because this study purports to be "scientific" if we're 
    to accept it's findings and conclusions, they must adhere to the 
    methods of accepted "good" science.
    
    �	 I never stated (did I?) that they proved anything.
    
    Not in those words, but you did say:
    
    � These are facts. . .Facts are facts. . .I find it a very 
    � heartening study indeed to know that there is a race that 
    � is more "advanced" than mine. . .
    
    Unless you were being facetious, it appears as if you've accepted
    the study's conclusions.
    
    �	 . . . but I would say that someone with better grammar
    �	 was more intelligent than me a grammar.  
    
    It appears that we may be using different definitions of the 
    notion of "intelligence"; while someone may be more *skilled*
    at using grammatical conventions, it is not, to the best of my
    knowledge an indication of "intelligence" which is most traditionally
    defined as the "capacity to acquire and use knowledge".

    �	 No one is better or more intelligent or more advanced in ALL
    �	 ways, just in some ways...
    
    Again, it looks like you're using "intelligent" as a synonym
    for "skilled"; the problem is that the study is defining
    "intelligence" in the traditional way.  And the problem in 
    this is 1) that the so-called "facts" have very little to do
    with measuring intelligence and 2) to accept them as such
    opens a door of extreme hazard - it allows "proof" that one
    ethnic group is "naturally more intelligent" than another or,
    stated in the reverse, that some ethnic groups are "naturally
    inferior" to others.
        
    �    Statistics like those presented in this study can help us 
    �    improve on those bad points.
    
    I think the ice is pretty thin here; statistics such as this may
    help our understanding of our world if they are valid (i.e.
    scientific; independently observed by enough to gain the status
    of "fact").  They can, however, be used just as easily to destroy.
    For example, the argument has long been proposed that minority
    populations in prisons are disproportionate to their numbers in
    the general population (true) and this *proves* that said minorities
    are more prone to commit crime (not true).  To accept the "proof"
    however, provides *justification* for persecution of the "inferior"
    group by "superior" groups and this is what is unacceptable.
    
    Steve

    re: .17
    
    I think we're in agreement Ron as far as when to imprison an
    individual.  I stated in my original reply (.13) that the 
    free speech amendment has boundaries (libel, inciting to 
    commit crimes, etc.)  While I disagree strongly with the
    notion of a "master race", I must allow a neo-Nazi to theorize
    that such a race is a "fact" - at this point, I must protect
    his right to speak what I feel is nonsense.  At the point he
    starts to violate the libel laws starts to recommend that
    we commit various crimes, his freedom to speak ends.
    
    Why, given my reply did you bring in the following non-sequitur 
    "fer instance"?

    � Now, let's take a relaxed, calm view of this. I think another 'fer 
    � instance' is in order. Say someone took your two year old baby girl
    � and, just for fun (no malice intended) grabbed her by the feet and
    � bashed her little head against a tree (meaning no harm, you
    � understand, just for fun). 
    �
    � Further, say that same someone killed your parents and used their
    � hair to manufacture pillow stuffing and their carcasses to
    � manufacture soap (nothing personal, you understand. Just good 
    � business practices).

    Does the study exhort people to commit genocide?  If so, it has
    gone beyond the allowable bounds of free speech and the author
    is liable for prosecution.  Does the study allege to simply "prove"
    that there is a "superior" race?  If so, it hasn't exceeded those 
    bounds.
    
    To the allegation by some that the holocaust "never happened", the
    vast preponderance of evidence (not "fact" in the scientific sense,
    but evidence) leads me to discount the allegation.  Does an individual
    have the right under the first ammendment to make such an allegation?
    Yes, and this is why I maintain that an educated populace is the
    guardian of a "free" society.  When, through ignorance and prejudice
    (I may have just been redundant there) people allow themselves to
    believe unsubstantiated allegations, bogus proofs, and the various
    tools of the propaganda artist, freedom is at serious risk.  But
    the danger is not from the speech; it is from the unquestioning
    *belief* of the "truth" of that speech.
    
    Steve
    

    You have the right to say anything you want.  "Right" does not mean
    "without any negative consequences" (a distinction a lot of people
    seem to miss).  It means you get to do it and you get to take the
    consequences.  In the case of the study, the professor gets to publish
    his article (although not necessarily through the university press).
    He also gets to have his peers laugh at him.

RE: .18

    
>    Ron,  Jim Kiegstra ("The Nazi", I finally remembered his name) doesn't
>    necessarily advocate bashing in the heads of little girl, nor does he
>    necessarily advocate turning people into soap.  He's just saying that
>    it never happened.

You should see this in the context in which the nazi said it. This
Jim Kiegstra is not the only one to make this claim. When nazis say
"it never happened", they are not just airing opinions, or even just
trying to exonerate their movement. They **are** advocating mass
exterminations. You should listen to everything they are saying. 

Thus, this propaganda is a preparation for a 'repeat performance',
in line with their overall ambition. 

A such, this is much more that "an insult to those who suffered.".
It's true that "there is a difference between insult and injury" -
this is the first step toward further injury. 


RE: .20

Steve, everything I said above also applies to your reply. But:

>    ... I must allow a neo-Nazi to theorize
>    that such a [master] race is a "fact" - at this point, I must
>    protect his right to speak what I feel is nonsense.

I strongly disagree with you, because from such nazi 'theorizing'
immediately follows the 'fer instance' I offered in .17. This 'it
never happened' propaganda is in line with the way the nazis
conducted their business since day one (If you say it often enough
and loudly enough, people will finally believe it). History is
there, for us to see what must follow, if we allow them to
'theorize'. 

Please do not be so simplistic as to assume that the nazis will be
happy to stop, once there is a following that accepts that 'it never
happened'. 


>    Does the study exhort people to commit genocide?  If so, it has
>    gone beyond the allowable bounds of free speech and the author
>    is liable for prosecution.  Does the study allege to simply "prove"
>    that there is a "superior" race?  If so, it hasn't exceeded those 
>    bounds.

My reply specifically addressed the nazi propaganda issue. The
professor's study is a different issue, over which, I believe, we
have no strong disagreements. 

-- Ron

    re: .22
    
    In re-reading some of the exchange here, I may not have been
    clear on a point: in the case of the Nazi pamphleteer, he was
    apparently exhorting people to hatred and therefore jailed; I
    believe that is the proper response in a "free speech" society.
    
    However, if one *simply* theorizes (and sites "evidence" in support
    of that theory) that there is a master race, it does *not* follow
    (logically, automatically) that one is advocating the extermination
    of others.  For example, I may believe that "my" race's natural
    superiority will lead it, over the course of many years or even
    centuries to evolve while other "sub-species" die out�.
    
    If I write "I'm a member of a "superior" race of beings that will
    eventually rule the world", I may be the object of derision, but
    not jail.  If I add to that ". . .and because of my/our "superiority"
    I have the right to wipe "you" out", I should be jailed.
    
    One other point:
    
    � Now, let's take a relaxed, calm view of this. . .  (.17)
    
    � Please do not be so simplistic as to assume that the nazis
    � will be happy to stop, once there is a following that accepts
    � that 'it never happened'.    (.22)
    
    Ron, if you'd like the discussion to be calm, I'd appreciate
    it if you don't read a "simplistic" view into what I've written;
    nor am I "assuming" anything.  I am, in fact, arguing *against*
    unwarranted assumptions, including the one that assumes that
    a supremicist philosophy *automatically* yields a genocidal
    stance.
    
    History has shown that there is a tendency of supremicist groups
    towards violence.  In a free society, this means, one (the society)
    watches such people like a hawk; one of my favorite "old saws"
    is the one that goes "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history
    are doomed to repeat it."  And I have no illusions about what
    this can mean in a complex, real-world environment; one must
    be prepared to enforce one's sanctions against people who advocate
    and encourage the destruction of others.  And I belive that any
    in our "free" society who act to so destroy others have, in effect,
    put themselves in a state of war against our society.
    
    The dilemma is how to "watch like a hawk" without becoming a closed 
    or totalitarian society oneself.  Once again, I believe the answer 
    is education and, from your most recent response, it appears you 
    also believe this to some extent, Ron.  
    
    As you've said when there are sufficient numbers of people *who
    accept*, for example, that the holocaust never happened, the steps 
    to violence become easier.  And whether or not people accept such a 
    premise is, I believe, dependent on what they are taught. 
    
    Steve
    
    � And, btw (& tongue semi-in-cheek), I *am* such a being; I'm a
      member of a race of beings who are "superior" because we
      understand that ignorance and prejudice are forces which are
      destructive on a global scale.  Over time we will, by dint of
      educating the world, eradicate such hatred and suffering and
      thus help others to "evolve" to our level. . .
    

    I never go with statistics.  They can be arranged to prove anything.
    For example.....
    
    	Blacks make up of 3% of the population.  30% of the Crime is
    done by blacks.   
    
    	Sounds like Blacks are all a bunch of criminals....but think
    of this...
    
    	Toronto isn't known for being a large Crime capital.....
    and maybe one black man commits three crimes in a place where there
    is only ten crimes a year ( know this is a gross under estimate!)
    That means he commited 30% of the Crimes.  If the population is
    1000 then 3 percent of that population would be only 30.  So we
    have 1 man out of 30 blacks who commited 30% of the crimes in the
    city.  Now one 29 lawful blacks get shot down because of 1 criminal.
    Not fair by my standards....
    
    I feel that these studies have their place but you should take them
    for what they are worth.  Not Much....
    
    	My feelings is that everyone should be handled on an indavidual
    basis.  People should be judged by their own actions not by what
    group they belong to.
    
    Bill
    

RE: .23

>    Ron, if you'd like the discussion to be calm, I'd appreciate
>    it if you don't read a "simplistic" view into what I've written;
>    ....
>    History has shown that there is a tendency of supremicist groups
>    towards violence.

Steve, on reading your last reply, I realize that your view is not
'simplistic' (BTW, no offense was meant, I hope none was taken), but
rather, global. You are discussing "a tendency of supremicist
groups" - I am referring, very specifically, to the well known goals
(not just 'tendencies') of the nazis (not just any 'supremacist
group'). 

I hope all readers will agree that the nazis are a very special
supremacist group, just going by their history, if nothing else.
Thus, supremacist groups, perhaps, need to be "watched like a hawk",
but (my personal feeling) nazis should be contained in a much more
decisive manner. 

I agree with your views, as they concern almost all other such
groups. But, definitely NOT those that openly advocate, work towards
or actually practice the extermination of others. 

-- Ron 

Back in the early '70s, when the little known Edwin Meese was
attorney general of California, he made the statement that
because the heroin traffic mainly from the chinese community, all
chinese should be suspect. My point is that some of these
"leaders" misuse their authority to point out their pet
conclusions to be fact.

I guess that's the danger of freedom, anyone can utter their
"hate" themes and call it fact. In the late 60's, I was attending
my first National Education association seminar in Miami, one of
the teachers from Dade County told me that some black students
believed that man never went to the moon but that it was a media
blitz. I guess if the nazi's claimed that the mass killing of
Jews never happened, just blame it on bad press for them.

cal hoe

< I guess if the nazi's claimed that the mass killing of    >
<Jews never happened, just blame it on bad press for them.  >
    
    I have respect for what happened to the Jews people in the
    WWII, but I think we should never forget others that were
    killed in the same camps. I think this has been a racist
    approach, you never hear about the others, this has been
    a media blitz. But why should we keep hearing those stories
    of the WWII? Why are we affraid of a new Hittler? The show
    must go on, I'm shore a new crazy guy will start a new war
    (Iran?, Siria?,???,?), maybe next time you'll see jews killing
    germans, maybe you'll see blacks making the white a slave. Nobody
    is affraid of wars in the XVII century.
    
    As I said before, the show must go on.
    
    -rui-
    

RE: .27
    
>>>    but I think we should never forget others that were
>>>    killed in the same camps. 

    right.  My grandmother was in a Japanese concentration camp in China
    during the war.  I am very aware of all the atrocities that the
    Japanese committed on their fellow human beings (including the Bataan
    Death March).
    
>>>I'm shore a new crazy guy will start a new war
>>>    (Iran?, Siria?,???,?), 

    That's why intelligence groups around the world are always trying
    to knock off potential crazies.  How much terrorism would be happening
    today if the US had gotten lucky and nailed Khadafy?  Imagine all
    the tens of thousands of people who might still be alive if those
    crazies in Iran had accepted a ceasefire earlier?
    
>>>    But why should we keep hearing those stories
>>>    of the WWII? Why are we affraid of a new Hittler? 

    The last big war and the last crazy fanatic caused so much hardship
    and so MANY needless deaths.  We try to remember history so that
    we can try to prevent a repeat.  The current generation did not
    live through all the horror of the last big war.  Korea and Vietnam
    were bad but most of America was shielded from it.  Most people
    lived World War II back then.
    
>>>The show must go on, 

    True, but those that ignore history tend to repeat it.
    
>>>    Nobody is affraid of wars in the XVII century.

    Back in the 17th century, they didn't have the weapons of mass and
    everlasting destruction.  Back then, some people thought it was
    an honor to go fight for their king or queen.  That's not true anymore.
    People nowadays question their leaders ideas and competence.  Remember
    how many people freaked out when Carter instituted selective service
    registration?  How many people will fight the draft if it were
    restored?  No one wants to go out and fight (and die) for a stupid
    reason.
    
    Back then, if someone got killed in a battle, you buried them and
    then continued.  Today, everyone can see up close what a dying person
    looks like on the battlefield.  Yes, it is bad.  No one should have
    to go through that.  The next big war will be the end of the human
    race.  Chemical and biological warfare will provide long and painful
    ways of dying, not to mention the fact that the effects will last
    a long time.  You won't be able to just move in and replace the
    lost population.  Nukes can destroy the entire infrastructure of
    a modern city (two nukes can take out all of metro NYC) in one instant.
    Ground zero will be unusable for decades.
    
    I have to worry about someone who is not worried about the possibility
    of war.  The weapons and battles are very glamorous, but history
    books tend to leave out all the suffering.

    B.

    The RCMP have concluded that there are no grounds for charges to be
    laid against the author of the study described in .0.  Dr. Ruston of
    the University of Western Ontario is free to continue his study and to
    publish his work.  It's old news now and nobody in Canada seems to
    care. 
    
    I rest much easier knowing that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
    has the insight to discriminate between racism, bad science and idiots
    babbling.
    
    Kris

    From the Montreal Gazette --
    TORONTO:(CP) Prof. Philipe Rushton's controversial racial theories may be 
    "looney" but they're not criminal, Ontario Anttorney General Ian Scott
    said yesterday. Scott told news conference he won't charge Ruston with
    spreading false news or inciting hatred becuase there is "no prospect"
    the professor would be convicted. Scott said. "Loony but not criminal"
    Ruston, now on sabbatical from Univ of West. Ontario in London, sparked
    a controversy in Jan. when he presented his "theory of race".
    He says Orientals emerged last and are superior to whites.
       ( Gazette Nov. 4th 1989 )
    
    In that same issue of the Gazette there was an article about a Japanese
    member of the DIET (MP) who has just published a book in Japanese 
    saying the "colored peoples"  like the Japanese are going to gain world
    dominance through "superior technology".  He seems to be saying:
    "Look at what we've done, it's about time you considered colored people
     superior or at least equal" He's definitely craving for status that he
    thinks has been denied "colored peoples".
       
    Speaking of "loony" theories: In the 18th century Gustave Le Bon theorized 
    that  "women are the most inferior beings of the human species"
    He was considered an intellectual by some of his "peers".
    Madamme Curie from the same nation of France and the "species" won the
    Nobel Prize in Chemistry - not only that her daugther also later on won
    a nobel. ( I believe it was  in chemistry as well) That goes to show
    the validity of Gustave Le Bon's  "intelligent theories". 
    The idiocy of pseudo-intellectuals no doubt.  

    re .30,
    
    By the way, Curie won two Nobel prices (one for physics and the
    other for chemistry).
    
    Eugene

  <<< Note 682.30 by BTOVT::BOATENG_K "Q'BIKAL X'PANSIONS, Somatique Vibs" >>
    
>In the 18th century Gustave Le Bon theorize
    
    Minor nit:
    Should be 19th century...
    
    Bo

      Re.0
    
    ONTARIO. A professor known for his controversial theories has *failed an
    annual review of his *academic performance, a University of West. Ontario
    official says. 
    
    Philip Rushton was denied a pay increase - granted to all professors
    who have made progress in their work - as a result of the *evaluation 
    conducted by his academic peers, said T. Collins, academic
    vice-president at the Univ. of West. Ontario.
    
    "The work that he's done is.. <psuedo>science " said Collins on
    Thursday May, 17th 1990 in his office.  
    
     If Rushton, a psych-professor, gets another unsatisfactory rating this
     year, the university will be entitled to begin dismissal proceedings
     against him, Collins said.
                                (Montreal Gazette May 19th 1990)   
    
     There ! So much for the work of "brilliant scientists" !
     Bigots who manipulate xenophobic morons to achieve
     cheap popularity shall always perish in their "Berlin Bunkers". 
     This reminds us of Adolf Hitler who failed TWICE (maybe thrice) on 
     entrance examinations to the Vienna School of Fine Arts which goes
     to show that Hitler was academically a dunce but demonically brilliant.
     It's not surprising that this Rushton guy has flunked an academic 
     evaluation by his own peers. He was perhaps deflecting attention from
     his own intellectual inferiority by dumping on groups that
     traditionally have been victims of nazi inspired supremacist propaganda. 
     
      Re. >> Free Speech..>>
    
      A few years ago a German immigrant in Canada was jailed for
      three and half years for teaching his high school class that the
      pogroms of 1933  - 45 never happened. 
      He tried using a defense of "Free Speech .."  a higher court of
      appeals said "to heck with you and your spite-filled rantings" and jailed
      him. As usual the Albertan & Ontario anglo-supremacists defended
      the demonic bigot by quoting some obscure "Free Speech laws.." but
      it never worked for Jim Keegstra the bigot - he was put in jail.
    
               * There's some more to enter about Rushton & Keegstra  
                 if I can find the time. Don't be surprised to find out
                 that one of them is a child molester.
    
    
    In a classic work by Allport on Prejudice and behavior he stated that:
    "Only those who are at peace with themselves are capable of having an
     objective non-prejudiced view of others. Often times a neurotic hate
    of non-dominants maybe a mirrored reflection of self-hate.." 
                   That explains the Rushtons, Keegtras and their ilk. 
    

    "anglo-supremacists"?  "demonic bigot"?
    "obscure 'Free Speech laws..'"? "child molester"?
    
    Talk about spite-filled rantings!
    
    		-John Bishop

    
    >> ..spite-filled rantings 
    
    About two months ago CKBY (FM Radio, Ottawa) in its 12 noon news break
    reported the complaints of a "True Canadian" who said:
    
    "I'm not a racist but our nation (Canada) which has been tranquil for
     centuries is now becoming more and more violent due to the emergence and
     mushrooming of Asian gangs, from Hong-Kong, China and the Far East" 
    
    Maybe someone is going to contact our brilliant prof. Rushton
    and have him conduct a research to confirm the beliefs of this fellow.
    
    A member of the dominant group (in this case an anglo-Canadian)
    singling out Asians as being responsible for violence in Canada is
    a clear indication of xenophobic spite-filled rantings.  
    
    Or.. as reported by the Mont.Gazette's column "Bouquets and Brikbats" 
    
    [A BRICKCBAT - To several anonymous callers to a phone-in radio show
    CHLT in Sherbrooke (Quebec province) for bigotry. Robert Libman,
    leader of the Equality Party, was the guest, and one caller told him,
    "You're a Jew, not an anglophone. How can you understand the history
    of French and English in Quebec ?" Another caller said,
    "My advice to him is to conduct his experiments in Isreal" 
             
    Mr Libman (a Montreal architect married to a Moroccan Francophone)
    is Jewish, whose mother tongue is English, was born and raised in
    Quebec, Canada as well as his parents. He's therefore Canadian like
    any other native born Canadian.  (M/Gazette April 28th 1990 page A2)
     
    Those callers who made the above statements are the ones who really
    engage in >> ..spite-filled rantings>> against non-dominant group members. 
    And that's what antilocution is all about, like Rushton & Keegstra's !
              
             NEXT ?

    Re. 682.29  on Nov. 11th 1989 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
    >> It's old news and nobody in Canada seems to care.>> 
             
                         --?---
    
    NOBODY ? Except the bored reporters at the Montreal Gazette offices.
    AND T. Collins vice-president of academics at the Univ. of West. Ontario.                    
    AND those ambivalent about their identity who feel compelled to
    pander to dominants and advocates of supremacist notions.       ? 

    
    	RE: the last few.
    
    	So what do we do? Do we jail them all because they may feel
    	this and dare say it? 
    
    	If you don't feel something is right, do you feel you have a
    	right to speak it? Why you and not them, if the answer is yes?
    
    	What about instead of groups of people they speak against, if
    	it was style of government? What if they said that they feel
    	the government doesn't represtent people and should be replaced
    	with a new one that would? (Mind you, this example doesn't say
    	they are calling for any form of violence) Do you allow free speech
    	for some and denounce it for others?
    
    	You spoke your mind, should anyone that doesn't see things as you
    	did have the right to jail you because of it?
    
    	G_B
    
    	I may not like what you say and think it's bull, but as far as
    	that goes, my only recourse should be to state my reasons why
    	I object to your stance and try to show where it fails. Jailing
    	someone because they speak their mind, however hateful is setting,
    	IMO, a means to decry free speech (read as only allowed to speak
    	the party line, or else!).
    

    Re. 37
    
    >> So what do we do?">> 
    
    U and who ?  "WE" who ?
    
    This son of a 'roach hate-monger Jim Keegstra was jailed in accordance
    with CANADIAN LAWS. Mind you  Canada is also a free nation just like
    Alabama.  A private person spitting out spiteful venom in private 
    conversation with his like minded bigotted friends is NOT the same
    as a teacher in a Public School system in the Province of Alberta or
    a lecturer in a Provincial university in Ontario being paid with
    the money of all Canadians. Canada as a free nation has Hate Laws which
    may not apply in Alabama (in a different country).   
    
    BTW: What law books were you quoting from when you wrote note 682.37 ?
    

    
    	Ah, now I see. You only have free speech behind closed doors
    	where no one else can hear you!!!!  If you say it in public,
    	then you MUST use the standard party line??
    
    	Really, Is that how "free speech" is defined in Canada?
    
    	BTW, unless you were throwing a cheap shot my way, what did I
    	write that makes you think I tried to quote LAW? And, if it
    	were a cheap shot, well like they say, everyone has an @&&^^@&!
    	and they all stink!!
    
    	G_B

re .38:
    
    I don't think .37 was defending anything other than the
    principle of free speech as defined by the U.S. Constitution (as
    intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court).  Neither was .37 trying to
    impose the U.S. concept of free speech on Canada.  He was just
    exercizing his right of free speech (protected in the United States
    where he currently resides) to voice his disapproval of the 
    way Canada handles the "loonies".  
    
    I too find the view of the "loonies" highly offensive, but that does 
    not give me the right to jail the "loonies" for expressing their views.  
    It is really the old "I do not agree with you, but I will defend to 
    death your right to express your view" principle.  Why do I want to 
    do that, you may ask.  I do that because I want to make sure that I 
    will not be put in jail some day for the reason of, say, liking broccoli.
                       
    Anyway, I don't think this debate belong here.  Maybe SOAPBOX is a more
    appropriate place?
    
    Eugene

    Re. 37
    
    >> Do you allow free speech for some and denounce it for others..?"
    
    >>Do you>> Who are the "YOU" ? 
    
    I've nothing to do with the laws. I was not the one who posted the
    original note. So why are you asking (ME?)
    Or perhaps you are referring to the co-mods who have the *POWER* to
    determine what is "inflammatory semantics" and what's not ?  Ask them. 
    
    Re. 40  >> Free Speech and the US Constitution
    
    AMENDMENT 1 (ONE).
    
    [ Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment...prohibiting
      the free exercise..or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
      or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
       the Government for redress of grievances.]  There !
    
          Ratified on Dec. 15th 1791 
    
    BTW: It seems weird that nobody has commented on the academic 
         evaluation of this Rushton guy as reported by the Gazette in .33
         but some people are getting overly excited about free speech and
         where it can be found etc.. Why ?

re: .41,    
>    BTW: It seems weird that nobody has commented on the academic 
>         evaluation of this Rushton guy as reported by the Gazette in .33
>         but some people are getting overly excited about free speech and
>         where it can be found etc.. Why ?
    
    That is because this note is called "Racism or Free Speach?"  And
    people around here believe that even racists (no matter how offensive
    their views are to you and me) are entitled to the right of free
    speech.   As to what I think about this Rushton guy...  As I understand
    it, this guy has never been to China or Japan or India.  He based
    his study on, what do you know, a few affluent Asians who could
    afford to immigrate to Canada.  As we all know Canada (as well as U.S.)
    has immigration policy that favors the professional and the rich.  As
    far as I am concerned, Rushton's "study" has lost all its credibility.
    Eugene 

Re: .42

>    people around here believe that even racists (no matter how offensive
>    their views are to you and me) are entitled to the right of free
>    speech.

I wonder how these people would react if the person they believe is 
entitled to free speech publicly advocated killing them off and 
using their hair for stuffing pillows.

If such 'free speech' actually led to mass extermination of these
people, they would probably change their point of view (if not
immediately preceding the extermination, then during). 

-- Ron

    The ACLU routinely defends Nazis, who often state explictly
    that they would jail and execute people like the ACLU members
    if they had the power to do so.
    
    I've had people tell me I should be deprived of my right to
    vote because I'm not a Christian.  I don't want any law passed
    to prevent such people from talking and preaching.
    
    So I guess the answer is "they don't change their minds".
    
    			-John Bishop

Re: .45

>    So I guess the answer is "they don't change their minds".

Well, as I said: "they would probably change their point of view
(if not immediately preceding the extermination, then during).". 

-- Ron

    re: .42 (Ron)
    
    I think your remarks point towards a crucial aspect of the "free
    speech" debate and I'd like to respond.  In this instance, my
    intention is to respond in the general case rather than to you
    specifically, Ron.
    
    � I wonder how these people would react if the person they believe is 
    � entitled to free speech publicly advocated killing them off and 
    � using their hair for stuffing pillows.
    
    The fact of the matter is that "free" speech is a phrase which
    describes a legal concept.  In point of fact, we are not "free"
    to say whatever we choose; as far as I'm concerned, this is as
    it should be.  Speech (and press) is governed by any number of
    laws covering things like libel, slander, and inciting to riot
    or commit a crime.  In such cases the speaker is "free" only to
    the extent that (s)he is willing to pay the penalty prescribed
    by law.
    
    An exhortation such as the one you describe above would, as stated, 
    be illegal (at least in this country) and the speaker would be
    subject to prosecution.  It is one thing to postulate that a par-
    ticular group is superior or inferior to another.  It's quite 
    another to advocate the commission of a crime in support of those
    beliefs.  
    
    As much as I may personally disagree with "theories" of racial
    (or sexual or religious or national) superiority, I support the
    freedom that allows these theories to be expressed.  It seems to
    me that to engage in suppression of such ideas is to embrace the
    methods of totalitarianism which we so loudly deplore.
    
    Steve

re: Note 682.45 by MINAR::BISHOP >>>
                               -< Answer to .43 >-

>The ACLU routinely defends Nazis, who often state explictly

    On a first  reading,  this offended me, but then i realized only one
    case is being offered.    I beleive it would be more accurate to say
    that the ACLU (American Civil  Liberties  Union)  routinely  defends
    people to protect their civil liberties.

>that they would jail and execute people like the ACLU members
>if they had the power to do so.
    
    Hmm this is an old one.    It'll never stop until the last tyrant is
    dead. Who defines who as the 'Tyrant de jour' ??  ;^)
    
>-John Bishop

    -BobE

    Re. 682.29  on Nov. 11th 1989 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
    >> It's old news and nobody in Canada seems to care.>> 
             
                         --?---
    
    NOBODY ? Except the bored reporters at the Montreal Gazette offices.
    AND T. Collins vice-president of academics at the Univ. of West. Ontario.                    
    AND those ambivalent about their identity who feel compelled to
    pander to dominants and advocates of supremacist notions.       ? 
    
    Why is the one who posted the basenote being reticent ?
    He gave us an update in .29 but he never gave us the update-in-the-news
    about the unsatifactory evaluation of the academic performance of the
    Rushton guy.  Why ? Is he still a reader of H_R or what ?
    
    Also why is that he never cross-posted the same note in the CANADA
    notesfile ? 
    One of the recent notes stated "..in our country the law..etc"
    How are the rest of us supposed to know which nation he/she is referring
    to? If the basenote was cross-posted in CANADA the noters who are more
    familiar with Canadian laws could have debated it better. I think. 
    

    Yes, still read H_R.
    
>        Re. 682.29  on Nov. 11th 1989 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
>    >> It's old news and nobody in Canada seems to care.>> 
    
    This is the second time you've posted this quote.  I was reflecting
    on the point that, like everything else which the media grabs, it
    was just a flash in the pan of the Canadian media.  It was therefore
    a flash in the pan of the the Canadian psyche.
    
    I didn't post the base note to direct intolerance nor study the
    nature of hatred nor to exam Canadian laws.  I was hoping to get
    feedback on the fine boundary between freedom to express and freedom
    to distort.
    
    If you feel that strongly about it; and the spite ridden spewage you've
    posted in here indicate that you do, then why don't you post it in the
    Canada notes file.
    
    Kris 

    Re. 50
    
    You are the one who started the basenote so why don't you DO IT ?

    re: .51
    
    � You are the one who started the basenote so why don't you DO IT ?
    
    ["It" in this case presumably (from .49) refers to an update on
    the Rushton case.]
    
    Kris answered you in .50 - he cited the Rushton incident as an
    example to open a discussion about where people draw the lines
    of free speech.  The discussion isn't about Rushton or any other
    individual per se.  Nor is it about Canada.  It's about the 
    relationship between a "free" press and ideas which are threatening
    towards other people.
    
    If you think it's so important to open a discussion in another
    conference or talk about the Rushton case, it's incumbent upon
    you to do the legwork.  I hear your anger, but I'm not sure
    at what it's directed or why.
    
    Steve

    
    Transparent rationalizations in defense of Rushtonian apologists for
    demonic bigotry ?  I hope not. 
    
        >> angry.. Must be referring to the noter's last note which
        sounded like something from  a wounded dragon ? 
        [ A case of mote-beam projection eh ?]
    
     * I thought that no one can repost an original note except the
       original noter.  Is there an electronic distance between Canada
       notesfile and H_R to require "legwork" ?
    
       Also what if the basenoter was specifically interested in
       certain feedback, hence skipping Canada(where it happened) and....?

re .43

>If such 'free speech' actually led to mass extermination of these
>people, they would probably change their point of view (if not
>immediately preceding the extermination, then during). 

>-- Ron

    One way to make sure that the fringe ideas of the "loonies" 
    do not lead to "mass extermination" is to ensure the integrity of the 
    Constitution (particularly the bill of rights).  That means to protect 
    the free expression of all views, even the very fringe ideas that are 
    extremely offensive to both you and me.
    
    Anyway, I am not a scholar on the Constitution and am not in a position
    to judge what is and what is not protected by the First Amendment.
    that is a job for the Supreme Court.  I also think Steve is right 
    that inciting violence is not protected under the First Amendment.  
    I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote something like 
    "Shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected under the First 
    Amendment, but shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a 
    riot is not protected by the First Amendment".  
    
    Finally, I am sure you would agree that such "mass extermination" 
    could never occur as long as the integrity of the Constitution is 
    preserved?
    
    Eugene                                                                 

    re. .51
    
    Like Steve says in .52, the basenote is not about Rushton, Canada, nor
    racism.  It's about the basis and the limit of the form of human
    interaction which we call free speech. 
    
    If you wish to get yourself worked up because I'm not about to post the
    base note in the Canada notes file, that's your perogative. But quit
    with the derogatory insinuations about my motives for not complying
    with an irrational request.  I'm starting to feel embarrassed for
    you.
    
    Kris  

Re: .54

>    One way to make sure that the fringe ideas of the "loonies" 
>    do not lead to "mass extermination" is to ensure the integrity of the 
>    Constitution (particularly the bill of rights).

Even accepting your premise, I am sure you are aware that there are
many forces at work to repeal portions of the constitution
(specifically, those pertaining to human rights). 

While these forces of evil (pathos here is not intentional  :-), but
I really don't know how to refer to them otherwise) have some
plausible reasons as to why this is good for us, I can't help but
wonder what's in store for you and I if this comes to pass. While
'mass extermination' seems remote in 1990's USA, it also seemed
remote in 1937's Germany. 

Hitler and his regime committed the most atrocious crimes in
history. As far as I can tell, they represent the only example in
history where mass murder was mechanized and industrialized to
conveyer-belt efficiency. This, coupled with blood curdling Sadism
as a norm of society and the utilization of human bodies --both
before and after death-- as a resource. 

As a result, any talk that smacks of **that** frame of mind seems
very dangerous to me. Dangerous, not just to a Jew, but also to any
human being, whether he be black, Hispanic, Oriental, or --under
certain scenarios-- a WASP. The same way Jews were convenient in
Germany, that human being could be convenient to the 'loonies on the
fringe'. The same way the 'loonies on the fringe' became 'main
stream' then, they could easily become so here and now. 

So, should we allow them to talk this way, because they have the
right to 'free speech'? Those who say 'yes', probably do not realize
the ramifications. This is NOT a question of 'the free expression of
all views, even the very fringe ideas that are extremely offensive
to both you and me.'. It's an invitation to the events that could
easily follow. 

That's why I think not. They do not have the right to yell "fire" in
a crowded theater. They also do not have the right to incite others
to commit a crime. Any crime. Including, harming a member of a
minority group. 

-- Ron

    We get back to the argument of what shade of grey is dark.  Who
    judges what utterance or publication is harmful.  Who judges what
    is meant by harmful.
    
    I could cite the rantings of prime-time preachers as generating
    malice when they say things like "Jesus hates the fornicators."
    A person a few bricks shy could interpret that as being reason enough
    to hate fornicators.  In fact, if Jesus hates fornicators then maybe
    we can cure all the world's ills by sending those darned fornicators
    to hell.  While we're at it, let's get all those heathen Moslems,
    Jews, coloured folk, Budhists, gays, Hari Krishnas, punk rockers
    and Yuppies.
    
    I think that's frightening.  And not because I fall into more than one
    of those categories.  But Reverend Angely and Jimmy "The John" Swaggart
    get rich tax free.
    
    Is that right?  In the end, I have to say yes, because the alternative
    is much worse.
    
    Kris 

Re: .56

>Even accepting your premise, I am sure you are aware that there are
>many forces at work to repeal portions of the constitution
>(specifically, those pertaining to human rights). 

And I hope you are not among the ones doing that (i.e. eroding the First 
Amendment etc).

>While these forces of evil (pathos here is not intentional  :-), but
>I really don't know how to refer to them otherwise) have some
>plausible reasons as to why this is good for us, I can't help but
>wonder what's in store for you and I if this comes to pass. While
>'mass extermination' seems remote in 1990's USA, it also seemed
>remote in 1937's Germany. 

Look at the first thing the Nazi's did after taking power.  They suspended
the freedom of speech and replaced the free media with Gobbel's propaganda
machine.  To carry out their evil deeds, the Nazi's supressed the 
freedom of speech.  The atrocities against the Jews and other nationals 
could not have happened had the freedom of speech and press been
upheld (It would have been impossible for the Nazi's to commit
such hideous crime if there had been network camera crews running around).

>As a result, any talk that smacks of **that** frame of mind seems
>very dangerous to me. Dangerous, not just to a Jew, but also to any
>human being, whether he be black, Hispanic, Oriental, or --under
>certain scenarios-- a WASP. 

You are right.  They are dangerous.  The way to deal with that is to 
speak up against such demagogue.  Censorship is not the way to go.  
Censorship is even more dangerous because whenever one undermines 
the principle of free speech (even for a good cause), one invariably 
erodes the nation's reverence in such principle, and over time (especially 
during time of economic distress) this can lead to the very evil we are trying 
to prevent.

>So, should we allow them to talk this way, because they have the
>right to 'free speech'? Those who say 'yes', probably do not realize
>the ramifications. This is NOT a question of 'the free expression of
>all views, even the very fringe ideas that are extremely offensive
>to both you and me.'. It's an invitation to the events that could
>easily follow. 

I may be wrong, but no nation has ever committed any crimes 
against humanity (e.g. genocide against the Jews) when the
freedom of speech and of press is protected in that nation.  
Rather it was in Nazi Germany where freedom of speech and press
were completely suppressed, such heinous crime was committed.

Freedom of speech (as well as the rest of the bill of rights) is there to
protect the rights of the minorities.  When we protect               
other people's right to free speech, we protect ours.

Eugene             

    re: .53 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    � Transparent rationalizations in defense of Rushtonian apologists for
    � demonic bigotry ?  I hope not. 
    
    To my reading, the phrase "transparent rationalizations" is 
    accusatory and unsupported.  It suggests that what I've 
    written can be dismissed as "rationalization" that others
    (you, presumably) can see through.  If you'd care to speak
    to the issues I've written about, I'm more than willing to
    listen.  Tell me where (specifically) you disagree with
    the thoughts I've expressed (and why) and I'll be happy
    to continue a dialogue.
    
    However, if all you want to do is toss around unsupported
    accusations, my only reply is that I suggest you exercise
    some care in doing so.  As in society in general, there
    are limits within this company upon the freedom of speech.
    One of those limits is that one may not use Digital resources
    (e.g. NOTES) to insult other employees.       
    
    In terms of the freedom of speech issue in general, I'd like
    to point out that it's just that freedom which allows you
    to make remarks like ". . .Rustonian apologists for demonic 
    bigotry".  The suggestion that people be jailed for expressing
    theories of a particular sort has what I consider to be a fatal
    flaw: it allows those in power to suppress "undesirable" thoughts.
    
    While that might be tempting when considering those people who,
    for example, express ideas of Aryan supremecy, there's no reason
    on Earth why it can't be used against those people expressing 
    thoughts about ". . .apologists for demonic bigotry".  The problem
    with controlling speech and the press is that such control, as
    Eugene points out, can (and usually does) become the tool of those 
    in power.
    
    � * I thought that no one can repost an original note except the
    � original noter.  Is there an electronic distance between Canada
    � notesfile and H_R to require "legwork" ?
    
    What I'm suggesting is that if you think it's worthwhile to 
    raise a particular point of discussion in another conference, 
    you may 1) repost the original by getting the author's written
    permission or 2) create your own topic.  The point is that you
    seem to be the one interested in seeing the topic discussed 
    elsewhere so it's your responsibility to initiate that discussion.
    
    
    �   Also what if the basenoter was specifically interested in
    �   certain feedback, hence skipping Canada(where it happened) and....?
    
    Could you re-phrase your question.  I don't understand what it
    is you're asking.
    
    � >> angry.. Must be referring to the noter's [Kris Hatashita, .52]
    � last note which sounded like something from a wounded dragon ?
    � [ A case of mote-beam projection eh ?]
    
    First, I suggest again that you refrain from name-calling ("wounded
    dragon").  Secondly, I take it from the "mote-beam projection"
    (whatever that is) remark that you think I'm confused.  As evidence
    of your anger, I offer the following remarks of yours from .33:
    
    � There ! So much for the work of "brilliant scientists" !
    � Bigots who manipulate xenophobic morons to achieve
    � cheap popularity shall always perish in their "Berlin Bunkers". 
    � . . .He [Rushton] was perhaps deflecting attention from his own 
    � intellectual inferiority. . .
    
    And later, in that same note:
    
    � As usual the Albertan & Ontario anglo-supremacists defended
    � the demonic bigot by quoting some obscure "Free Speech laws.." but
    � it never worked for Jim Keegstra the bigot - he was put in jail.
    �
    �           * There's some more to enter about Rushton & Keegstra  
    �             if I can find the time. Don't be surprised to find out
    �             that one of them is a child molester.
        
    Perhaps you see no anger in those remarks but I certainly do.  I
    agree with those who've indicated that phrases such as, "Bigots
    who manipulate xenophobic morons", "intellectual inferiority", and
    "demonic bigot" are hardly free of spite.
    
    Incidentally, unless you have some evidence to support an accusation
    of child molestation, I suggest that you retract that remark.  As
    it is, it occurs to me that you're treading dangerously close to
    openning Digital to a libel suit.
    
    More (from .36):
    
    � those ambivalent about their identity who feel compelled to
    � pander to dominants and advocates of supremacist notions. 
    
    All in all, I feel a good deal of heat in your comments, but
    precious little light.
    
    Steve

re .59
>    All in all, I feel a good deal of heat in your comments, but
>    precious little light.

Well, I heard on PBS that folks up north are getting upset over 
something called the Meech Lake Accord.

Eugene

     Note 682.7 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
   >> re .6
    
   >> The Nazi (although the man never claimed to be one) may have actually
   >> believed what he was preaching.  Can we really know?  
    
     ( And the Montreal Gazatte issue of May 19th has told us where this
       rushton guy is coming from. He flunked a review of his academic
       performance by his own peers.) 
        
   >> The frightening part of the entire issue was that, because of the
   >> amount of press this person had recieved, he had gathered a following
   >> by the time he came to trial.  Had the press written him off as
   >> a wing-nut and not followed his trial in detail he would have been slated
   >> for oblivion
    
   >> The part which has me sitting on a fence is that all through history
   >> people with strange and often idiotic theories have been persecuted.
   >> But some of them were actually right (Galilleo, Copernicus, spherical
   >> Earthers).  Not to say that the Nazi may be right, but he does have
   >> a right to believe whatever he wants.  Does he have a right to say
    it?
    
        >> has me sitting on a fence >>
       
                                        Becuase you posted the basenote ?
    
                                         

    Re. Note 682.55 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
    >>..the basenote is not about Rushton, Canada, nor racism..
    
    There seem to be a need for conflict resolution here !
    
    Who reported and started the basenote ?  
                                             BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
    
    Why was rushton's "research" used as the foundation for the basenote ?
    
    What if the topic had just been started like..
    
    "What is Free Speech according to the 1st Amendment of the US Const.?"
    

    
    Re. 633.0
    
   >> I have to do a presentation for my class. 
                      
   If the elimination of out-group discrimination depended soley on debunking                            
   racist prejudicial doctrine, such discrimination would disappear in just one
   generation. But as the history of racial doctrine suggests, belief in its
   claims does not rest soley on inadequate knowledge of its objective error
   but *MOSTLY in the desire of the  bigot to believe it. No amount of
   presentations from you  can change those who are determined to
   stick by their prejudices. Also education or "smarts" have little to do with
   bigotry. Simply becuase: "you don't have to be a dummy to be a bigot.."
                
                The psychological benefits of being bigotted.
                 ----------------------------------------------     
   John Dollard in an observation in  "Caste/Race..in a S.Town" stated: 
  [ The third gain accuring to the  -supremacist caste was, ego gratification.
    
     [Embedded in the racial psyche of racist bigots is the preoccupation 
    with face-saving and self-justification, which are probably born of deep,
    mostly not conscious but also not bearable, doubts of their position..... 
                           
         (This should explain part of the Rushtonian Agenda ?)   
   
                  Just a question for those who may know .

    Are you enjoying talking to yourself, Boateng_K?  The notes you're
    quoting were written months and months ago.  Your tone is arrogant and
    angry, and to all the silent readers your emotionalism towards Kris
    is 1) not responsive to his original questions, so you're off-topic and
    2) disregarding his disinclination to pursue the tangent, so you're rude.
    
    I mean, these notes over the last few weeks look like they came out
    of left field!  What's the point?  Do you imagine that you're owed 
    an answer?  
    
    DougO

    re: .60 by Eugene
    
    Off topic - (over) simplified view of the Meech Lake Accord.
    
    The Meech Lake Accord (or discord more like) is an attempt by the
    Canadian Federal Government to bring Qu�bec into the constitution. 
    Canada formed it's own constitution independent of Britain only in
    1982.  At that time Qu�bec refused to sign.
    
    The Qu�becois see Meech Lake as a necessary accord to bring them into
    the constitution as it recognises Qu�bec as a distinct society.
    
    Non-Qu�becois see Meech Lake as dangerous because it recognises Qu�bec
    as a distinct society.
    
    Both sides have different views as to what distinct means.  There is
    also significant political manoevering around basic issues such as
    women's and native rights (not included in the constitution) and the
    need for reform of the Senate.  These are issues that many
    non-Qu�becois want resolved in order to accept Meech.  Many (n-Q) people 
    fear that if Meech is passed as is then Senate reform (a major issue in the 
    west) will not happen as Qu�bec (which has the most to lose by reform) 
    would use it's power of veto.
    
    BTW Qu�bec recently evoked a clause in the constitution (which they
    didn't sign remember) to over-ride Qu�bec's own charter of rights and
    freedoms.
    
    Bob

    re: .62, for one
    
    His name is Kris Hatashita (not Hitashita).
                                     ^
    
    Steve

    Re. 682.59 by EARRTH::MALLETT
    
    >> Free Speech..Caution..etc..>>
    
    Where were you when THEY needed you ?
    
    Another way a person reveals bias/bigotry is by demanding a different
    standard of performance from certain ones, though giving them less 
    recognition. Or he/she may condemn in one ethno-racial group conduct
    that he/she *frequently tolerates in his own clique. Yet, such a person
    would fiercely resent any suggestion that he/she is biased/bigotted.
    
    Since this topic is about "Free Speech & Racism or Free Speech" 
    I would like to add that for those of us who are not atheistic pagans
    we may want to reference  Psalm 36:2 or Romans 12:9 & 10. - We who are
    believers are encouraged to be true and sincere to our convictions
    reiterated in the American creed further enshrined in the democratic
    principles highly valued by great leaders like B. Franklin & J. Adams.
    
         EARRTH::MALLETT speak on behalf of all who need to be defended 
        not just Kris' "pet issue of free speech.." so far you've not
        said anything about what Ron's notes have been saying. Why ?
    The basenote is titled "Racism or Free Speech" if you want to do 
    critical thinking based on objective facts stand up and be counted on
    the other half of the topic too.
    
    
    Re. >> What is mote-beam projection >>
    
    The mote-beam mechanism might be defined as the process of exaggerating
    qualities in other people which both they and we all possess, though we 
    may not realize that we possess them.
    Mote-beam projection, then is a kind of "perceptual accentuation" 
    
    If you are upset, Kris is ego-bruised and the other noter .64 is angry
    then why are you wondering about noter .61 who is concerned about the spread
    of satanic inspired demonic stereotypes masquerading as research ?
               
         Free Speech ? Yes ! Antilocution ? No !

              <<< KAOSWS::$1$DUA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CANADA.NOTE;1 >>>
                  -< CANADA - The True North Strong and Free >-
================================================================================
Note 264.69                  Language Inequality                     69 of 124
BTOVT::BOATENG_K "Keine freien proben !"            132 lines   2-MAR-1990 23:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:Note .66 by Scoo.  The following is  an explanation and example of
ANTILOCUTION:  A headline from The Montreal Gazette issue of March 4th 1989.

     "ENGLISH-LANGUAGE NEWSPAPERS SHOW ANTI-FRENCH BIAS: ( BASHING du Jour) 
 
           A non-dictionary definition of ANTILOCUTION                                                     
           ---------------------------------------------
 What people actually do in relation to groups they hate is not always directly 
 related to what they say about such hated groups(publicly). Sometimes the hater
 forgets himself and let it slip unconsciously -> The Freudian Slip .
 It is true that any negative attitude tends to somehow, somewhere, to express
 itself in action. Few people keep their antipathies entirely to themselves.
 The more INTENSE the ATTITUDE, the more likely it is to result in frequent
 degrading bashing of the hated group.  ( This should explain why some people
 are more prone to bash the Francos &  minorities than others.) 

 ANTILOCUTION:
               Most people who have prejudices talk about their biases with
like-minded bigotted friends. Occasionally they may express their antagonism
freely with strangers. But many people never go beyond this degree of 
antipathetic action. 

AVERSION:
          If the prejudice is MORE INTENSE, it leads the individual to avoid 
          the hated group.  This means that if the hated group is being 
          sadistically ridiculed, bashed, degraded, dumped on,...the aversive
          bigot will be oblivious to the pain of the hated group.

An example: It was reported in the Feb.24th 1990 issue of the Gazette
                   that a Francophone employee in Sault Ste Marie who previously
                   ate lunch with fellow workers who are anglophones 
                   was all of a sudden being shuned by those he thought were his
                   friends.  Why ?  It's got to be the antilocution factor.
                   It happened after the unilingual law was passed in the Sa.StM
 
                   

DISCRIMINATION:
               Here the prejudiced person makes detrimental distinctions of
               an active sort. He/she undertakes to exclude *most members of the
               hated group in question from certain types of social privileges.
               
ATTACK:
         Under conditions of heightened emotions his/her prejudices will lead to
         acts of verbal violence or hostility in the form of intimidation by
         using hate appeals to degrade the minorities and to gain the support
         of like minded bigotted members of the dominant group.  

         A book written by a member of the "Alliance of..English" entitled:
         "Bilingualism Today, French Tomorrow" written by a guy named
         J.V. Andrews was described by a Francophone who was familiar
         with the contents as, "This is the vilest racist, trash you ever
         want to read.."  Why ? Becuase s/pages of the book make degrading
         remarks  about Francophones - quoted: "Quebec families are breeding
         units. The auto helped to speed..delivery to their drinking taverns.."
     (Free Speech ?  Or Inciting to hate non-dominants ?)
                      
[ The following is from page 15 of ISBN 0-201-00179-9: 

While many people would never move from antilocution to hostile persecution
of the hated group....still IT IS TRUE that activity on one level makes 
transition to a more intense level easier. 
It was Hitler's  antilocution  that led <MOST> Germans to avoid their
Jewish neighbors and erstwhile friends. This preparation made it easier 
to enact the Nurnberg laws of discrimination which in turn made the subsequent
<physical attacks> seem natural.]
                                    
   Example in "Mein Kampf" Hitler wrote:
             
    "...I detest the conglomeration of races..Jews and more Jews.."
          (Free Speech Or Promoting Hatred towards hated groups ?)
        
  The Francophone Experience in Anglophone Canada:
  ------------------------------------------------
From, June 28th 1989 issue of the M/Gazette an article culled from the
Southam News by Mike Trickey )

...the day to day discrimination <faced by Francophones> is..seen in a post
   office (as an example) Where the English speaking clerk in Pickering, Ont.
   hopes to improve the Francophone customer's English by shouting ever louder
   at him. Or it's at the downtown Toronto bank where the English speaking  
   teller informs a Francophone customer who has written her cheque in French
    that, "You Are Now In Canada" - translated to mean <parlez blanc?>
    A bigotted sarcastic speech ? Or a sadistic sense of humor ? 
    

    re: -.67
    
    Having worked in a customer service department for a few years, I agree
    that the teller was way off base in her comment.  Regardless of how she
    felt inside, she should have said, "I'm sorry, but this bank will not
    accept any check that is written in any language other than English." 
    This would have sufficed, and if the customer had a problem with the
    bank's policy, she could then take it up with the manager. 
    
    A lot of people are hurt because of flippant, senseless,
    unprofessional, and demeaning comments.  Despite upbringing and
    personal attitudes, people in general should rise above this
    level of bigotry and try to at least be courteous.  These
    attitudes take a long time (and many generations) to die out, but it
    has to begin somewhere. 
    
    I don't have any clear-cut answers.  I'm becoming more and more
    accustomed to the idea that everyone has biases and a degree of prejudism
    towards different groups, however subtle or slight.  Maybe by thinking
    more about what to say, before saying it, and realizing that we are all
    one on this planet, we can overcome these human shortcomings and
    develop into a more loving and caring people.
    
       - Larry
                                                                    

    re: .67 (BVOVT::BOATENG_K)�
    
    � >> Free Speech..Caution..etc..>>
    
    Are you trying to indicate by the ">>" marks that you're quoting
    me?  I ask because use of such marks is a well established convention
    in NOTES and I want to understand if it's your intention to use
    them in that manner.
    
    � Where were you when THEY needed you ?
    
    Whom do you mean by "THEY"?  As nearly as I can tell, the implication
    is that "THEY" is meant to represent those people supporting notions
    of racial superiority.  Is this, in fact, what you mean to say?
    
    � Another way a person reveals bias/bigotry is by demanding a different
    � standard of performance from certain ones, though giving them less 
    � recognition. Or he/she may condemn in one ethno-racial group conduct
    � that he/she *frequently tolerates in his own clique. Yet, such a person
    � would fiercely resent any suggestion that he/she is biased/bigotted.
    
    I agree.  However I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic
    under discussion which, as I understand it, is exploring what
    should and shouldn't be allowable as "free" speech.  The crux of
    Kris' initial question is, "Where, in a society allowing "free"
    speech, should we draw the line between what is tolerable and 
    what is criminal?"  So far, you've spoken a great deal about
    where you think you see bigotry, but you've yet to address the
    question of the limits of legality.  For example, are you 
    suggesting that a society should be able to imprison a person
    who puts forth a theory that one ethnic (or religious, national,
    or sexual) group is superior to others?
    
    � Since this topic is about "Free Speech & Racism or Free Speech" 
    � I would like to add that for those of us who are not atheistic pagans
    � we may want to reference  Psalm 36:2 or Romans 12:9 & 10. - We who are
    � believers are encouraged to be true and sincere to our convictions
    � reiterated in the American creed further enshrined in the democratic
    � principles highly valued by great leaders like B. Franklin & J. Adams.
    
    What are you trying to imply with the phrase "atheistic pagans"?
    
    Also, if it's your intention to say something, then please say it.  
    Or, more specifically, if you feel that there is something in the 
    Bible or the works of Franklin or Adams that speaks to the issues 
    here, please quote those writings.  The overall impression I get
    is that you're trying to say some people are not being true to
    their convictions.  Is that, in fact what you're suggesting?
    
    �     EARRTH::MALLETT speak on behalf of all who need to be defended 
    �    not just Kris' "pet issue of free speech.." 
    
    Who in the world are you to command me to speak on behalf of anyone
    but those whom I choose?
    
    � . . .so far you've not said anything about what Ron's notes have 
    � been saying. Why ?
    
    Perhaps you should pay closer attention and read .47
    
    � The basenote is titled "Racism or Free Speech" if you want to do 
    � critical thinking based on objective facts stand up and be counted on
    � the other half of the topic too.
    
    The implication here is that if I don't respond to the issues
    as *you* see them, I will somehow not be doing "critical thinking
    based on objective facts."  Simply because the title of the note 
    has the word "racism" in it does not necessarily mean that the 
    author's intention was to discuss what is or isn't racism.  I think 
    that was clear in the base note but because you seemed to want to 
    discuss other issues, Kris re-stated his intentions (in .50) as follows:
    
      "I didn't post the base note to direct intolerance nor study
       the nature of hatred nor exam (sic) Canadian laws.  I was 
       hoping to get feedback on the fine boundary between freedom to
       express and freedom to distort."
    
    Now while you have some freedom to continue discussing the issues
    you wish in this note, perhaps there are other notes which might
    be more appropriate for exploring the nature and/or faces of
    racism.  Some possibles include:
    
    	.133  When it isn't Bigotry
    	.299  Prejudice and Racism
    	.507  Racism and Homophobia
    	.708  Racism ... does the source bias the conclusion?
    	.819  Tolerance
    
    � The mote-beam mechanism might be defined as the process of exaggerating
    � qualities in other people which both they and we all possess, though we 
    � may not realize that we possess them.
    � Mote-beam projection, then is a kind of "perceptual accentuation" 
    
    In that case, since it's you who's chosen to make the accusation,
    I ask you to state - with specific quotes - where I've engaged in
    such behavior.
    
    � If you are upset. . .then why are you wondering about noter .61
    � who is concerned about the spread of satanic inspired demonic 
    � stereotypes masquerading as research ?
    
    I'm not sure why you refer to yourself as "noter .61", but let
    me try again to make clear that which is bothering me.  You've
    made it abundantly clear that you want to use this note as a
    forum to espouse notions of people as satanically-inspired
    or demonic.  O.k.  I hear you (repeatedly).  What you seem
    unwilling to do is answer the questions that were raised in
    the base note, specifically about what society should do about
    people who postulate theories of the superiority of one group
    over another.  Should they be allowed to publish?  Should they
    be allowed to conduct research at universities?  Should they
    be jailed?  Or executed?
    
    And just as an aside, I must confess that I see more than a
    little hatred on your side of the fence in labelling people
    things like "moronic idiots" and "satanic".  To me you seem
    to display the kind of stereotyping that you so loudly decry.
    Rather than quote any of these people's research and discuss
    rationally and logically why it's fallacious, you've chosen
    to dismiss it with a string of epithets.  What makes your 
    epithets any less prejudicial than those slung by others?
    
    �     Free Speech ? Yes ! Antilocution ? No !
    
    Are you accusing me of "antilocution"?  If so, I ask that you
    please be clear about it and, more importantly, show me 
    *specifically* where my words demonstrate such behavior to you.  
    At least we can then discuss specific facts as opposed to some 
    vaguely implied accusation.
    
    Steve
    
    
    � Just for the record, I wouldn't want you to think that
      by addressing you as BTOVT::BOATENG_K I'm intending to
      be impersonal.  I'm using this form of address because
      it's the way you've chosen to identify yourself.
    

    re .60 and the ones following that.
    
    See I was right.  Some folks up north are upset about the Meech Lake
    Accord and channeling his/her/their anger in this note.  Wow! what a
    great psychologist I am.  What a GENIUS (says Roger Rabbit)!  And I am
    going to appoint myself the resident counselor the H_R notesfile
    desparately needs.
    
    Eugene

re: Note .71 by Eugene

�    re .60 and the ones following that.
    
�    See I was right.  Some folks up north are upset about the Meech Lake
�    Accord and channeling his/her/their anger in this note.  Wow! what a
�    great psychologist I am.  What a GENIUS (says Roger Rabbit)!  And I am
�    going to appoint myself the resident counselor the H_R notesfile
�    desparately needs.
    
    Sorry but you flunked the test (assuming up north means Canada).
    
    The only note in that string that was entered in Canada was mine, and
    that was a review of the situation here.  Didn't contain any anger that
    I can see, at least not my anger.

    Cheers,
    	Bob

    re .72,
    But of course I didn't mean you Bob.  wasn't it obvious?
    Eugene

    It just struck me.  I raised the question of the fine line between
    the freedon to express and the freedom to distort and BOATENG_K
    has been demonstrating how easy it is to cross back and forth (and
    back and forth and back and...) over that fine line.
    
    As examples:
    
    >    I would like to add that for those of us who are not atheistic pagans

    The term "atheistic pagan" is a distortion invented to inflame "true
    believers" (another distortion, by the way).  An atheist is not
    a pagan, nor is a pagan an atheist.  It's a term derived by the
    juxtaposition of two terms which, for some reason inspire fear and
    loathing in those that count themselves amonst the "love thine enemy"
    devout.
    
    >        not just Kris' "pet issue of free speech.." so far you've not

    Another distortion.  Free speech is not a "pet issue" with me. 
    I've entered notes on racism, the meaning of life, attitudes towards
    the poor, the irrelevance of marriage...

    >    If you are upset, 
    
    I don't think Steve was upset.
    
    >Kris is ego-bruised 
    
    I'm afraid the term you're looking for is closer to rib tickled.
     More deception, more distortion.
    
    Furthermore: your constant satanic references to persons who hold
    different views must have the late Ayatollah grinning in his grave.
    
    I can only conclude that, in the absense of any coherent reasoning
    in the notes you've posted here, you're demonstrating your freedom
    to distort and direct hatred as an example of how ugly it can really
    get.
    
    As bizarre and as offensive as your postings have been, I still can't
    bring myself to believe that we'd be better off censoring your replies.
    
    Thanks for the demo.
    
    Kris 

    
    
    Re. 74 and .70   
    
       Can Nazi concentration camp victims be accused of hating the Gestapo?
    
Re:53 
>> I spoke up and was told that I am soaked with hatred >>  It sounds like ...

DIRECT PROJECTION - A means of solving one's conflict by ascribing to another
person or others  motives, emotions, and behavior that **actually** belong to 
the person who projects them, and **not** the person who is blamed for them.
Suppose there are unwanted traits in oneself - perhaps greed, bigotry....
What the sufferer needs is a caricature of these attributes - as simon-pure 
incarnation of those evils. The person needs something so extreme that 'e
might not suspect the -self of being guilty. So what a "brilliant" way (sleazy)
than to use such & such label on a powerless, defenseless out-group member/s ! 
The protective significance of the device is evident: it is a mind-soothing
falsity.  That probably explains why the noter/s might have said that. The
conflicting inner hate have not been exorcised out of the individual/s yet,
hence the projection. Who are blamed most - victims or the victimizers ?
    
    Re. 74 >> ...we'd be better >>  "WE" referring to who?  
      Talk about conflicting statements.
       BRADOR::HATASHITA what you've said to explain your intent for the
      basenote seem to be pure Defensive Rationalizations. 
      Let's cut the abstractions and begin dealing in realisms !

    Re. Note 682.55 by BRADOR::HATASHITA
    
    >>..the basenote is not about Rushton, Canada, nor racism..
    
    There seem to be a need for conflict resolution here !
    
    Who reported and started the basenote ?  
                                             BRADOR::HATASHITA
    
    
    Why was rushton's "research" used as the foundation for the basenote ?
    
    What if the topic had just been started like..
    
    "What is Free Speech according to the 1st Amendment of the US Const.?"
    
             What about this ? You forgot to answer ?

    re: .76 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    � Why was rushton's "research" used as the foundation for the basenote ?
    
    I believe Kris was simply using the mechanism of example to
    illustrate the point.  As a matter of fact, Rushton was only
    one of four examples Kris cited (the others were a Dr. David
    Suzuki, Nazi pamphleteers in Canada, and certain televangelists).
    
    All of his examples served to illustrate that it might well 
    be worthwhile discussing what the allowable limits of "free" 
    speech are.  Look, I, and I think just about everyone here, 
    would agree that there people espousing are all sorts of 
    racist/nationalist/sexist,etc. ideas in our world.  The 
    question Kris is raising is, "Do we let them speak their 
    minds and, if so, where, as a free society, we should place 
    legal limits on what they say?"

    �    What if the topic had just been started like..
    � "What is Free Speech according to the 1st Amendment of the US Const.?"
    � What about this ? You forgot to answer ?
    
    Why do you keep asking this?  The fact is that it *didn't* start
    that way.  Kris started the note the way he wanted to, as was his 
    right.  If you feel that a discussion about the definition of
    the first Amendment would be worthwhile, why not start a topic
    of your own?
    
    Steve       

    Re. 682.69 by QUIVER::STEFANI
    
    Amen !  Free Speech that promotes better ethno-racial human relations
            can be used by all.
    
    "Free speech" that is  basically antilocution/bashing is what let
    to the pograms beginning with Adolf's Mein Kampf. 

    re: .79 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    Once again you're putting forth the idea of "good free speech" (i.e.
    ". . .promotes better ethno-racial human relations") and "bad free
    speech" (i.e. "antilocution/bashing").
    
    Some questions for you:
    
    Who decides which is "good" and which is "bad"?  What gives them
    the right to make such decisions for all of society?
    
    How do you propose to determine "good"ness and "bad"ness?  And
    here I mean very specifically what objective rules do you intend
    to use to judge a particular person's words?
    
    Do you propose any limits to "free" speech?  For example, if "I"
    somehow have determined by your rules that "you" are a bigot, do
    I have the right to write false statements about you?  Do I have
    the right to exhort others to harm you in some way?
    
    What do you propose to do about those who commit some sort of
    "bad free speech"?  
    
    And I'll give you an example to work with:
    
    	I am a devout believer in my faith and belong to a particular
    	sect of that faith which has a worldwide recognition and 
    	following.  In reading the sacred documents of that faith,
    	I come to the honest conclusion that certain groups should
    	live separately.  My conclusion is that is how "God" intended
    	things to be and it's this way of living that would promote
    	the maximum harmony in this world.  I stand at podium in the
    	meeting hall of my religious group and I state my beliefs.
    
    	What do you intend to do about me?  Will you have me legally
    	silenced?
    
    Steve
    

    Re. Note 682.0 by BRADOR::HATASHITA
    
    >> A recent study and report by a professor at the University of Western
    >> Ontario has created a public outcry in Canada..
    
     Why 'cuz...?
    
     The most obvious way to butress one's biases and therefore preserve
     them from conflict with societal ethical values, is to marshall 
     "evidence" in their favor. Here the individual engages in selective
     perception and selective forgetting. He may persuade himself that this
     "evidence" is conclusive.
     Rationilization is at work so long as the individual selects his
     evidence to bolster a categorical overgeneralization. 
    
     PERCECPTUAL SELECTIVITY to confirm a hypothesis already formed is the
     commonest form of Defensive Rationalization. 
    
     (This Rushton guy's "research" is one of those where the individual
     first forms a HYPOTHESIS then goes out to collect data to form a
     theory. ) ?
    
    
     RATIONALIZATION:            
                   Rationalization does not mean "to act rationally" it
    means assigning socially desirable motives to what we do so that we
    seem to have acted rationally or properly, it provides the individual
    with acceptable motives for a behavior.
                       
               Questions for those who may know.
    
                        What method did he use to collect the data ?
    
                        How many persons were studied for his research ? 
    

    re: BTOVT::BOATENG_K (several)
    
    You continue to use the reply title "Now back to the topic. . ."
    yet, from all I can see, you continue to try to re-direct the
    topic.  And for some reason you have thus far refused to answer
    those questions asked directly to you which *do* address the
    topic.  I begin to think there's a major communication breakdown 
    here.
    
    I ask you here to please state, in one simple sentence, exactly
    what you think Kris intended the topic of discussion to be.
    
    Steve
    
    

Re.0
    
>>Another incident in Canada involved a man who published and distributed
>>pamphlets which claimed that the Holocaust of Nazi Germany never occurred and
>>that it was dreamed up by an international Jewish conspiracy in order to
>>establish Israel. The man was charged with inspiring hatred towards a specific
>>ethnic group and jailed. 
    
    About the case..
    
    [ A immigrant to Canada from Europe Jim Keegstra was prosecuted for..
    
      "Knowingly Publishing False Information Which Was Likely to Cause
       Harm To Social or Racial Tolerance" by denying that the Holocaust
       ever happened, reported  The Globe and Mail of Toronto, Canada.
       The result was a 15-month jail sentence and a ban on the publication
       of his revisionist views of the Holocaust. ]
    
    Re.0 >>Again I found myself sitting on a fence. 

    I'm not sitting on a fence about this case. The guy was convicted
    for "publishing & distribution of harmful disinformation" .
    This (in my opinion) is beyond the limits of free speech. 
    The Ist Amendment of the US (as an example) does not protect those who buy
    or distribute child pornography. Because child pornography promotes
    child molestation. "Free Speech/Press laws" do not apply in this case.
    
    Jim Keegstra was convicted under Canadian laws, so how can anyone use
    US Ist Amendment - Free Speech laws to defend him ? 
    
    Rushton was not jailed. ( I've reported this in note. ref. 682.30) .
    If in the future it's found out that he concocted his data in a kitchen
    then perhaps he will face the law under a different set of charges.  
   
    :MALLETT does it answer your question about my opinion on
    Free Speech laws ?
    
        
     Re.682.6 >> The basenote deals with three separate topics.>>
                
                                ----              
    This is exactly what I have been saying. MALLETT since you seem
    to be explaining everything for :HATASHITA  would you like to
    explain what the first sentence of note .6 is saying ?
     

    re: .83 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)

    � EARRTH::MALLETT does this answer your questions about my opinion
    � on Free Speech laws ?

    I'm have that very frustrated and unconfortable feeling I get
    when I sometimes listen to discussions in the media.  I get
    particularly angered when one party asks a question and the
    other party answers a different question, one that wasn't
    asked.  Usually in the media I interpret this behavior as
    an attempt to avoid answering questions directly.

    You surely have given opinions about some free speech laws.
    But where, and I challenge you to quote me directly, did I ever
    ask your opinion of *laws*?  

    You apparently feel this topic is about the first amendment to
    the American constitution or Canadian laws.  I don't think that's
    what Kris intended and here are his words (to you, no less) that
    support my contention:

    .50 � I didn't post the base note to direct intolerance nor study the
    .50 � nature of hatred nor to exam Canadian laws.  I was hoping to get
    .50 � feedback on the fine boundary between freedom to express and freedom
    .50 � to distort.
    
    .55 � . . .the basenote is not about Rushton, Canada, nor racism.  
    .55 � It's about the basis and the limit of the form of human
    .55 � interaction which we call free speech. 
    
    In .57, he asks the following which, it seems to me, is a question
    that goes to the heart of the topic.  Notice that he's not framing
    the question in terms to the laws of any country:

    .57 � We get back to the argument of what shade of grey is dark.  Who
    .57 � judges what utterance or publication is harmful.  Who judges what
    .57 � is meant by harmful. (sic)
    
    So, you can say all you want about the laws of this or that country
    (after all, this is NOTES and, unless you violate either company
    policy or some law, I can't stop you).  But please don't suggest
    that you're answering my "questions" - the questions you're answering 
    are your own.

    Equally frustrating is your apparent refusal to answer direct
    questions.  Here are some that you've thus far declined to
    answer directly:

    .70 � Are you trying to indicate by the ">>" marks that you're quoting
    .70 � me?  

    .70 � Whom do you mean by "THEY"?  As nearly as I can tell, the 
    .70 � implication is that "THEY" is meant to represent those people 
    .70 � supporting notions of racial superiority.  Is this, in fact, 
    .70 � what you mean to say?
    
    .70 � What are you trying to imply with the phrase "atheistic pagans"?
    .70 � 
    .70 � The overall impression I get is that you're trying to say some 
    .70 � people are not being true to their convictions.  Is that, in 
    .70 � fact what you're suggesting?
    
    .70 � Who in the world are you to command me to speak on behalf of anyone
    .70 � but those whom I choose?
    
    .70 � In that case, since it's you who's chosen to make the accusation,
    .70 � [of "mote beam projection"] I ask you to state - with specific 
    .70 � quotes - where I've engaged in such behavior.
    
    .70 � What makes your epithets any less prejudicial than those slung 
    .70 � by others?
    
    .70 � Are you accusing me of "antilocution"?  If so, I ask that you
    .70 � please be clear about it and, more importantly, show me 
    .70 � *specifically* where my words demonstrate such behavior to you.  

    .77 � Why do you keep asking [about the first amendment]?  The fact 
    .77 � is that it *didn't* start that way. . .If you feel that a 
    .77 � discussion about the definition of the first Amendment would 
    .77 � be worthwhile, why not start a topic of your own?

    .80 � Who decides which is "good" and which is "bad"?  What gives them
    .80 � the right to make such decisions for all of society?
    .80 � 
    .80 � How do you propose to determine "good"ness and "bad"ness?  And
    .80 � here I mean very specifically what objective rules do you intend
    .80 � to use to judge a particular person's words?
    .80 � 
    .80 � Do you propose any limits to "free" speech?  For example, if "I"
    .80 � somehow have determined by your rules that "you" are a bigot, do
    .80 � I have the right to write false statements about you?  Do I have
    .80 � the right to exhort others to harm you in some way?
    .80 � 
    .80 � What do you propose to do about those who commit some sort of
    .80 � "bad free speech"?  
    .80 � 
    .80 � And I'll give you an example to work with:
    
	[if you really want to answer the question, you'll find the
	example in .80]

    .82 � I ask you here to please state, in one simple sentence, exactly
    .82 � what you think Kris intended the topic of discussion to be.
    
    Since you asked me one other question in .83, I'll do you the
    courtesy of answering directly; I can only hope that you'll
    do the same and answer my questions directly.
    
    �      Re.682.6 >> The basenote deals with three separate topics.>>
    �            
    �                            ----              
    � This is exactly what I have been saying. MALLETT since you seem
    � to be explaining everything for :HATASHITA  would you like to
    � explain what the first sentence of note .6 is saying ?
           
    First of all, how can I "explain" what someone else wrote?  Do
    you mean to ask how I'd *respond* to Ron's remarks?  If so,
    I disagree that there are three topics.  In his note (.6), Ron
    gives his views on three (of the four) examples Kris cited in
    the base note.  Kris might have cited a dozen more *examples*,
    but that doesn't mean that the examples are meant to be the
    *topic*.  
    
    As I indicated earlier, with documentation from the base note author, 
    the topic is about the limits of speech in a "free" society.
    Your attempts to say that the examples are the topic are off base.
    
    And finally, what on Earth are you talking about in .63?  In that 
    reply you say:

	� Re. 633.0
	�
	� >> I have to do a presentation for my class

    You then go on to about ideas of bigotry.  Just one problem,
    though: 633.0 is a request from Jane Crocitto (from 1988) for
    information on how to become certified as an *exercise instructor*!

    Steve

    Racism and intolerance are just two heads of many on an ugly creature
    we call hatred. 
    
    Hatred feeds on fear, loathing, distortion, misdirection, lies,
    spite, and host of other nasty things.
    
    From what little I can make out from your line of reasoning in this
    topic, and I see that Steve has done what he could to try and make
    sense out of it, all I can figure is you've taken up a die-hard
    campaign to slay this creature by feeding it to death. 
    
    Quit trying to goad me into a battle of wits, BOATENG_K, especially
    when you advance unarmed.  I've read your insinuating comments
    regarding my motive for posting the base note.  I've read your notes
    which come way out from left field and use quotes taken from my
    postings as examples of how a racist would try to justify his position.
    
    Like you said in one of your brilliant non-sequitors, there is need for
    conflict resolution here, but that need lies within you. 

    Throughout the repart�e that we have shared over the past weeks you
    have constantly harped on two points: 

	1) I wrote the basenote.
	2) The basenote talks about Prof. Rushton.

    Between your rantings of some devil/satan/evil/pagan conspiracy to
    encite racism, you have made insinuation of racist intent because I,
    and yes I admit I wrote the basenote, didn't move the note into the
    Canada note file.  Some people see the ghosts of their own fears all
    around them. 

    For some reason you seem to read all sorts of malicious intent in the
    basenote and the fact that I didn't move the note into the Canada note.
    So you're either ego bruised (no I'm not projecting), or you find
    something offensive about my notes or me personally. 

    You've drawn your sword against a shadow, BOATENG_K.  The fact that I
    question the censorship of ideas which are offensive or distortive, is
    not to say that I support the propogation of offensive or distortive
    information.  Is this where you're having problems?  If so, you
    have seen the enemy, and the enemy is you.


>    Re. 74 >> ...we'd be better >>  "WE" referring to who?  
>      Talk about conflicting statements.
>       BRADOR::HATASHITA what you've said to explain your intent for the
>      basenote seem to be pure Defensive Rationalizations. 
>      Let's cut the abstractions and begin dealing in realisms !

    Conflicting with what?  Please let me know in plain words what you
    think my intent was in the basenote.  And quit embarassing yourself. 

.81>    >> A recent study and report by a professor at the University of Western
.81>    >> Ontario has created a public outcry in Canada..
    
.81>     Why 'cuz...?

    What do you mean by Why 'cuz...??  

    In the paragraph which follows "Why 'cuz..." you give a diatribe about
    perception and rationalization.  What are you trying to say?  Really,
    what are you trying to say? 

    And the bit about Rushton is all fine and well.  You, BOATENG_K,
    understand that there is a difference between good and bad science and
    good and bad logic. Whatever it is that's been bugging you throughout
    this topic can be addressed. There aren't that many irrational
    projective pagan satanists racists here. 

.83>    This is exactly what I have been saying. EARRTH::MALLETT since you seem
.83>    to be explaining everything for BRADOR::HATASHITA  would you like to


    You know, BOATENG_K, your vindictive and irrational nature is going to
    catch up with you.  You've talked alot about projection, you've talked
    too much about distortion and hatred and yet you've had no qualm about
    twisting truth and projecting your own miserable attitudes, and
    hatreds.  Steve has addressed his issues with you and I have addressed
    mine.  I can see it.  I think Steve can see it. What's keeping you from
    seeing it?  Love isn't the only thing which is blind. Hatred, stupidity
    and ignorance also carry their own share of myopia. 

    I had also stated further back that the media attention given to Jim
    Keegstra did nothing but add validity to his warped and twisted point
    of view.  I've realized that whatever peeve you have with me or my
    notes goes much deeper than can be addressed here, so either present me
    with a direct question, BOATENG_K, preferably one which hasn't been
    answered yet and one which has some sort of connection with the topic
    at hand (even a real vague connection would be refreshing), otherwise I
    will quit adding validity to your point of view.

    Kris 

 Re. 56
    

>> While these forces of evil (pathos here is not intentional  :-), but
>> I really don't know how to refer to them otherwise) have some
>> plausible reasons as to why this is good for us, I can't help but
>> wonder what's in store for you and I if this comes to pass. While

>> Hitler and his regime committed the most atrocious crimes in
>> history. As far as I can tell, they represent the only example in
>> history where mass murder was mechanized and industrialized to
>> conveyer-belt efficiency. This, coupled with blood curdling Sadism
>> as a norm of society and the utilization of human bodies --both
>> before and after death-- as a resource. 

>> As a result, any talk that smacks of **that** frame of mind seems
>> very dangerous to me. Dangerous, not just to a Jew, but also to any
>> human being, whether he be black, Hispanic, Oriental, or --under
>> certain scenarios-- a WASP. The same way Jews were convenient in
>> Germany, that human being could be convenient to the 'loonies on the
>> fringe'. The same way the 'loonies on the fringe' became 'main
>> stream' then, they could easily become so here and now. 

>> So, should we allow them to talk this way, because they have the
>> right to 'free speech'? Those who say 'yes', probably do not realize
>> the ramifications. This is NOT a question of 'the free expression of
>> all views, even the very fringe ideas that are extremely offensive
>> to both you and me.'. It's an invitation to the events that could
>> easily follow. 

                The above is exactly my point.  ( Meaning I'm in agreement
    with this statememt.)  In ref. to ::MALLETT's .84
    
      

    re: .86 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    � THIS above is exactly my point.  ( Meaning I'm in agreement
    � with this statememt.)  In ref. to ::MALLETT's .84
    
    To what in .84 do you think you're referring?  So far, you've
    still chosen not to answer my questions.
    
    Steve

     Another recipe for chocolate cookies:

	2 ounces of chocolate
	3/4 cup shortening
	1 cup of suger
	1 egg
	1/2 teaspoon vanilla
	1/2 teaspoon salt
	2 tablespoons milk
	2 cups of flour


     Preheat the oven to 400F and eat the whole mess with
a huge wooden spoon.

Eugene

Re: .88

But Eugene, should one be allowed to publish a recipe that uses white
chocolate or even mint chips?  Should we pass laws banning such things because
some people might find them distasteful?  (Or even nauseating?)

Or was this just a tasty metaphor for our "melting pot" population?

			Steve

    
    
    
    
     Re.88  I think you are in the wrong note/topic.
            BTW: Send me and others pieces of ya stuff!
    
    
    >> To what in .84 do you think you are referring ?
    
    REFERRING to..
    
    Re. 84
    
    >> Why do you keep asking [about the First Amendment] ?
    
    Because does it [Ist Amendment] cover the freedom to publish
    Child Pornography (as an example) ? 
    

    >>> Why do you keep asking [about the First Amendment] ?
    >
    >Because does it [Ist Amendment] cover the freedom to publish
    >Child Pornography (as an example) ? 
    
    Yes.  It does.
    
    
    					andrew

    re: .91
    
    Andrew, I'm not so sure.  The Supreme Court has left it open for
    communities to decide what falls under "obscenity".  In the case of
    child pornography, there are laws against contributing to the
    delinquency of a minor, as well as rape and sodomy laws to protect
    persons under the age of consent.  From those and others, a natural
    extension is to limit the publication and distribution of what is
    deemed, "child pornography".  I don't believe the Supreme Court would 
    overrule any cases involving that.
    
    I'm quite liberal when it comes to the 1st Amendment, what I'd like to
    call "Freedoms of Expression", but I agree that certain limitations must
    be maintained for the good of the people as a whole.
    
       - Larry

    Re. Note 682.91 by SSGBPM::KENAH 
    
    >>> Why do you keep asking [about the First Amendment] ?
    >
    >Because does it [Ist Amendment] cover the freedom to publish
    >Child Pornography (as an example) ? 
    
    {{Yes.  It does.
    
    
        {{				andrew
    
    
       Are you sure it does ?
       What about possession and distribution of Child Pornography ?

    Am I absolutely sure?  No.  That's not up to me.
    
    Possession and distribution is not the same as freedom to publish.  
    
    					andrew

    re: .94
    
    Andrew,
    
       What's the difference?  Child pornography is a business. 
    Distribution is part of that business, without it, there is little
    reason to produce it.  Obviously, if possession is illegal, there goes
    the freedom to publish.
    
       On a higher level, the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall
    pass no law abridging the freedom of the press.  The 14th Amendment
    later on protected against state laws.  However, the Bill of Rights
    have always been open to interpretation, and they were written with
    that in mind.  The "Founding Fathers" knew that they could not guard
    against every conceivable situation, so they left it open for us as a
    people to decide what is and what is not allowed.
    
       I don't believe the 1st Amendment protects child pornography;
    production, distribution, or otherwise.  The producers of such films
    are breaking the law, and it is not right (or legal) for others to 
    benefit financially from that.
    
       - Larry

    Kiddie porn falls under the category of "obscenity" which the court
    has said is *not* covered by the first amendment.  As we're seeing
    today, the definition of "obscenity" is very definitely a case of
    "I'll know it when I see it."
    
    I'm becoming more and more convinced that any abrogations of the first
    amendment are at our own peril, even for things which we "know" are
    bad.

    
    >What's the difference?  Child pornography is a business. 
    
    	Not necessarily.  
    
    >Distribution is part of that business, without it, there is little
    >reason to produce it.  
    
    	Only if you assume child pornography is only a business.
    
    >Obviously, if possession is illegal, there goes the freedom to publish.
    
    	I'll state it again: distribution and possession are different
    	than the freedom to publish.  
    
        There are three questions here:	
    
    	1. Does the 1st Amendment protect the freedom to publish?
    
    		In general, yes.  In the case of child pornography,
    		perhaps yes, perhaps no.  It depends on whether or
    		not it is designated as "obscene."
    
    	2. Is it illegal to possess child pornography?
                                    
    		I don't know -- the answer to this doesn't strike
    		me as a First Amendment question.
    
    	3. Is it illegal to distribute child pornography?
                                    
    		Again, I don't know -- here, however, the First
    		Amendment may come into play.
    
    					andrew

    What a minute .96 and .97 ...
    
    Let's call a spade a spade.  Child pornography is NOT the same as any
    other type of pornography.  We're not talking about obscenity, we are
    talking about rape, molestation, sodomy, and other crimes against
    persons who are LEGALLY protected because they are minors. 
    
    Regardless if they consented, regardless if it's proven it was not
    filmed under duress, the acts which make up a pornographic movie are
    illegal when performed to individuals under the age of consent.  This
    age may vary from state to state, but the point remains the same, the
    acts which make up these films are NOT LEGAL.
    
    I realize that the two of you believe strongly about 1st Amendment
    rights, and so do I, but in this instance, I fail to see how it's even a
    1st Amendment issue (though the producers of these films would like it
    to be).
    
    Again, we're not talking about pornography or even hard-core
    pornography by consenting adults.  That discussion is separate since
    except in some states (for example Georgia, where anal sex is prohibited),
    the acts themselves are not illegal when done by consenting adults
    (adults not under durress).
    
       - Larry
              

    ::KENAH  .94, .97,
    
    >> 1. Does the Ist Amendment protect the Freedom to publish -
    >> In the case of child pornography,
    >> perhaps yes.. (?)
    
    >> 2) Is it illegal to possess child pornography ?
    >> I don't know
                     andrew
    
        (Precedents) For Comparative Analysis.
      --------------------------------------------------
    [ In Los Angeles, 28 year-old Ward Rafay reported the theft of his
      video camera. Two weeks later the Police arrested him and charged
      him with nine counts of child molesting. The robber who stole the
      video camera found an incriminating tape that Rafay (the owner) had
      left in the camera. The robber played it and recognized the minor
      and then sent the tape to the girl's mother, who notified police..]
               [Reported in June 1990]
           ( A robber with a conscience ?) 
     Can the Ist Amendment be used to defend Ward Rafay ? I doubt it !
     What if the subject was a matured adult ?  
    
      Precedent (Study II.)
    
     [ Donald Rakowski of Georgia,  was convicted by a U.S. District
     Court jury in Burlington, of receiving child pornography that had been
     mailed. The IBM enginner faces up to 10 years in jail and a fine of
     US$10,000.00 for picking up a magazine produced in Japan at a Milton,Vt 
     Post Office box in May 1987, according to U.S. Attroney George Terwilliger III
     III. 
         The magazine depicted a pre-teen girl and an adult woman in nude
    poses together and poses of the girl alone. ]
    
       Perhaps Free Speech law in Japan allows Child Pornography, while
       Canada and US laws forbid Child Pornography.  
       When someone says: "Our society" or "In society" what societies
       are they referring to ?  Or statements like .. "where do we draw
       the line..?"  "WE" referring to who ? Are there universal legal
       laws that can be applied in every nation on planet Earth ?
    
       As courtesy to Steve Mallett ( in regards to question asked in .84)
       I would like to state my personal opinions on.. 
    
       "where should the lines be drawn.." As euphemistically stated..
       "which shade of pink is white ..?"
    
      o If my 11 year old son comes home with: 120 Days Of Sodom by,
       Marquis de Sade - I will kick the *#$$%* book out of his hands and
       "ban it" in my own empire.
    
      o If my twelve year old daughter comes home from school with a copy
        of: The communist manifesto by Carl Marx under her armpit I will
        call the School Dept. and call them "You *&&*%^ atheistic communist
        bastards should get that sh!t out of my daugthers's class room !"
        Then If my daughter insists on reading it, I will stop paying for
        her tuition (scholl fees) until she comes to reason and agrees with
        me in my empire.
    
      o If my spouse returns home from the store with a bunch of mags like:
        "Forbidden bestial porn from Istanbul" or "How to kill your spouse
         like a pro hit-man"  I will file for divorce the following day and
         send her out of my empire.
    
        Now mind you, I'm not a right-wing conservative extremist, but
        I'll not allow some liberal anarchists to tell me how I should rule
        in my own empire.  Relativity of  Free Speech ? Yes ! In my book.
    
      From Dec/Jan. issue of Paris Passion:
    
      [ 120 Days of Sodom has just been published for the first time in
        English (language) in Britain by Arena. 
         In 1778 Marquis de Sade was charged with "debauchery and excessive
         licentiousness"  For a period of four weeks de Sade wrote 
         120 Days Of Sodom.  The book is a huge Gothic depictions of
         erotique hell. Four reps from the ancien regime - a Bishop, a Duke
        a Judge and a Financier spend a holiday in a chateau.
    
        Is the following Free Speech ?  
        Excerpts from 120 Days Of Sodom.
    
        "..He  had a bowl full of <scatos> trummelled in and plunged the
          nude <femme> into it and licked every inch of it..and swallowed
          everything removed.." 
        
     This book at some point has been  banned  in every <free world> government
     since the publication.  
           (culled from page 50/51 of Dec/Jan issue of Paris Passion)
    
    
           *p/s. The English word  SADISTIC is derived from the name of
                 Marquis de Sade. The original scatological pornographical
                 philosopher .  What about Marquis de Sades Free Speech ?

    re: .90 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    Well, I guess you've succeeded in your apparent goal to
    change the intended topic of discussion.  That topic
    was "When does the freedom to speak become the freedom
    to distort?"  
    
    You've managed to turn this into a discussion of the
    relationship of the American first amendment to pornography.
    You could have chosen to start your own not for discussion
    but elected not to.  I would gladly engage discussion with
    you on those subjects, but not in this topic.  The author
    of this note had a specific stated (and re-stated) purpose
    and I intend to honor that purpose.
    
    You've consistently refused to answer questions asked of you 
    including requests for clarification of remarks that I believe 
    are insulting.  I personally find your evasive tactics frustrating, 
    but if you refuse to answer direct questions, there's nothing I can 
    do to change you.  If nothing else, you've shown, as Kris suggested
    earlier, that the freedom to speak does indeed allow the freedom
    to distort.
    
    Steve

    Re. 682.100
    
    >> That topic was "When does the freedom to speak become the
    >> freedom to distort?"
    
    Speaking of distortion and freedom of speech..
    
    There is no where in the basenote (682.0) by BRADOR::HATASHITA
    where it is stated: "Where does the freedom to speak become the freedom to
    distort?"  Me and others did not notice that statement in the basenote.   
    
    He stated that "he is sitting on a fence". Meaning he is ambivalent
    about what is b.s. science and what is academic freedom to publish
    any form of ideas due to free speech ?   (this is *only a question) 
    
    Then he added at the bottom of the note.
    
    Re. 682.0 
    
    >> Where do we draw the line ?
      
              "we" -> meaning ?
             
    >> Any comments ?
    
    
       What kind of comments are being asked for ?
       The "rephrasing" in .55 .57. etc.. came several months after the
       posting of the basenote. Why was the question: "When does the
       freedom to speak become the freedom to distort?" not included in the
       basenote if that was the only intent of the discussion/topic ?   
    
    
      The basenote asked all the noters (hopefully) >> Any comments ?
    
      And some of us have volunteered to share our COMMENTS. 
      Why should anyone who believes in free speech not censorship be
      reticent in expressing their frank opinions ?

    re: .101 (BTOVT::BOATENG_K)
    
    �    Speaking of distortion and freedom of speech..
    �
    � There is no where in the basenote (682.0) by BRADOR::HATASHITA
    � where it is stated: "Where does the freedom to speak become the 
    � freedom to distort?"  Me and others did not notice that statement 
    � in the basenote.   
      
    I didn't say it was in the base note; I said it was the topic
    the author intended for discussion.  And he stated exactly
    that - directly *to you*, no less.  In .50, Kris was replying 
    to some of your entries and, in trying to re-focus the topic 
    he said:
    
    � I didn't post the base note to direct intolerance nor study the
    � nature of hatred nor to exam Canadian laws.  I was hoping to get
    � feedback on the fine boundary between FREEDOM TO EXPRESS AND
    � FREEDOM TO DISTORT  [emphasis mine]
    
    I have to wonder if you're really even reading these replies.
    
    Steve

    Re: .98 (QUIVER::STEFANI)
    
    Just for the record, (child) pornography and the acts that were done to
    obtain said materials are two different things, in my opinion.  I have
    no problems with the legal penalties for pedophiles (throw the book at
    them), but doing the punishing at the publication end results, again in
    my opinion, in a lot of basic free speech problems.

    Re. 682.102
    
    >>...it was the topic the author intended for discussion
    
    A case of alternation, perhaps ?
    
    Why was the topic titled: Racism or Free Speech ?  ( By HATASHITA the
    author of basenote. )
    
    The basenote was posted on Feb. 9th 1989.
    The "rephrasing of intent" was posted on June 1st 1990. ( well over a year)
    
    Was the "rephrasing" in .50, .55, .57 a reaction to the Montreal
    Gazette article posted in note .33 ?   (as an example) 
    
    Another thing. How many of the noters have jumped in to interprete
    any of the notes by BTOVT::BOATENG_K for the readers before BOATENG_K
    could enter an explanation ? 
    
    My point is. If a question is directed towards HATASHITA why don't you
    allow HATASHITA to respond *FIRST then enter your comments after him ?
    I've nothing against the science/art of "ventriloquism" just that me
    and others are being equally frustrated by MALLETT's attempts to respond on
    behalf of HATASHITA before anyone else. <- (BTW: That's my opinion)
    
    Re. 682.0  >>...sitting on fence..>>  Why ? 
    
    
    Re.682.0 >> Where do we draw the line ?
    
             "we" --> meaning ? 
    
    >> Any comments ? >>>   You mean from all noters ?
    
    Why was the question: "When does the freedom to speak become the 
                           freedom to distort" not included in the basenote
                           if that was the only intent of the discussion/topic?

    Re: .103 (VANTGE::MACKIN)
        
       Just for the record, in my honest opinion, child pornography
    (whether a publication or a film) is a medium displaying (if not
    promoting) illegal acts.  Similar to laws that would prevent   
    Charles Manson from benefiting financially from a book about his career
    of murdering innocent people, child pornographers should not benefit
    from sales of a medium that displays illegal acts.
    
       Now taken out of context, you might surmise that "The Untouchables"
    was a film displaying illegal acts, but I submit that there is a real
    difference.  Where you and I disagree is that I don't believe there are
    any "free speech problems" from punishing distributors or even
    consumers of child pornography.  I guess it's a matter of degrees.  Some
    people might consider adult pornography to be mediums displaying immoral
    (and in some states illegal) acts, and that they should be banned.  I
    would disagree.  Also, "throwing the book" can mean a lot of different
    things.  Imprisonment for an individual who possesses child pornography
    is too severe, in my opinion.  On the other hand, a heavy fine or a
    jail term is not too severe for someone who traffics or produces it,
    again, in my opinion.
    
        - Larry

     Re.682.85 by HATASHITA
    
    >> The fact that I question the censorship of ideas which are offensive
    >> or distortive, is not to say that I support the progagation of offensive
    >> or distortive information..
    
    Then why did you say you were "sitting on fence" about Jim Keegstra's
    case when as matter of fact he was convicted for..
    
    "Knowingly publishing false information which was likely to cause harm
     to social and racial tolerance.." 
    
     (If you call the Solicitor General's Dept of Canada they will tell
      you want laws of Canada he was convicted under. His conviction has
     nothing to do with Free Speech laws) 
    
    
      The statement in .85 was preceeded by ----->
    
     Note 682.7 by BRADOR::HITASHITA
    
   >> re .6
    
   >> The Nazi (although the man never claimed to be one) may have actually
   >> believed what he was preaching.  Can we really know?  
    
     ( And the Montreal Gazatte issue of May 19th has told us where this
       Rushton guy is coming from. He flunked a review of his academic
       performance by his own peers.) 
        
       
   >> The part which has me sitting on a fence is that all through history
   >> people with strange and often idiotic theories have been persecuted.
   >> But some of them were actually right (Galilleo, Copernicus, spherical
   >> Earthers).        
        
    >> has me sitting on a fence ..
        
           Waiting for Rushton to be accepted as a true scientist like Galileo ?
           Is that the connection you are/were trying to make in note .7? 
                         (just a question, because me and others are
    equally trying to understand your views on this forum/topic).

re. 104

>     A case of alternation, perhaps ?

Nope.

>    Why was the topic titled: Racism or Free Speech ?  ( By HATASHITA the
>    author of basenote. )

Because I was wondering whether the freedom to speak your mind extended as far
as promoting racist intent.  The freedom to swing my fist end where someone
else's nose begins.  Where does someone else's "nose begin" in this case.

>    The basenote was posted on Feb. 9th 1989.
>    The "rephrasing of intent" was posted on June 1st 1990. ( well over a year)

You brough it up again.

>    Was the "rephrasing" in .50, .55, .57 a reaction to the Montreal
>    Gazette article posted in note .33 ?   (as an example) 

Nope.

>    My point is. If a question is directed towards HATASHITA why don't you
>    allow HATASHITA to respond *FIRST then enter your comments after him ?

Steve is as free to respond to your notes as you are to mine.  His notes
provide a sanity check and a moderating factor in this little t�te-a-t�te.
Good to see you placed your disclaimer regarding what others may feel regarding
Steve's replies because I doubt that others are getting frustrated.  See,
you've learned something here.

>    Re. 682.0  >>...sitting on fence..>>  Why ? 

Because I don't think it's right to persecute someone for what he says.  I also
don't think it's right for someone to say things which are lies.

>    Re.682.0 >> Where do we draw the line ?
>    
>             "we" --> meaning ? 

"We" meaning the society of which we are all a part and in whose beliefs and
laws and morals we all have a hand in shaping.  (At least in theory)

>    >> Any comments ? >>>   You mean from all noters ?

Yes.

>    Why was the question: "When does the freedom to speak become the 
>                           freedom to distort" not included in the basenote
>                           if that was the only intent of the discussion/topic?

I thought it was implicit in the basenote.


re. .106


>     (If you call the Solicitor General's Dept of Canada they will tell
>      you want laws of Canada he was convicted under. His conviction has
>     nothing to do with Free Speech laws) 

What do free speech laws have to do with this?  His conviction has nothing to
do with the point of my question.  If you can't see that, BOATENG_K, find
someone to explain it to you.

>     ( And the Montreal Gazatte issue of May 19th has told us where this
>       Rushton guy is coming from. He flunked a review of his academic
>       performance by his own peers.) 

What does Rushton's academic performance have to do with this.  His flunking an
academic review has nothing to do with the point of my question.  If you can't
see that, BOATENG_K, find someone to explain it to you.

Have I ever spelled your name wrong?

>           Waiting for Rushton to be accepted as a true scientist like Galileo ?
>           Is that the connection you are/were trying to make in note .7? 

Nope.  Not even close.  If you knew anything about the history of science you'd
know that charges were laid against Galileo and he was imprisoned under house
arrest for supporting a view unpopular with the authorities of the day. 
Copernicus, Boltzman, Darwin, Freud, Planck, Schroedinger, Harvey all had their
detractors.  If we'd released people who supress with violent hostility ideas
which spring forth "in their empires" on these scientists, we'd have some dead
scientists on our hands.  You seem to be advocating this, BOATENG_K (I spelled
it right again) or are you just trying to be cool? 

>                         (just a question, because me and others are
>    equally trying to understand your views on this forum/topic).

I'm flattered that my views on this forum/topic are of such interest to you and
others.  Extract this reply, print it out and frame it, because as far as I can
tell, I've answered all your questions (again).

Kris

    Re: child pornography.
    
    There's a real problem with definition, just as there is with
    adult pornography, but complicated by the fact that children are
    more commonly photographed naked than adults are (e.g. "Is taking
    a photograph of my baby in the bath pornographic?").
    
    The Supreme Court used to spend lots of valuable time discussing
    what "obscene" and "prurient" meant, and we now have "community
    standards", which is just "I know it when I see it" applied by a
    jury after the fact.
    
    Despite being eager to prevent the abuse of children, I don't see
    how to define pornography legally without also lumping non-abusive
    art in the forbidden category, unless the legal code for taking
    pictures of a child is made as complex as tax law.
    
    			-John Bishop

    >Regardless if they consented, regardless if it's proven it was not
    >filmed under duress, the acts which make up a pornographic movie are
    >illegal when performed to individuals under the age of consent.  This
    >age may vary from state to state, but the point remains the same, the
    >acts which make up these films are NOT LEGAL.
    
    	Who said anything about movies?
    
    >I realize that the two of you believe strongly about 1st Amendment
    >rights, and so do I, but in this instance, I fail to see how it's even a
    >1st Amendment issue (though the producers of these films would like it
    >to be).
    
    	Ask the estate of Robert Maplethorpe.
    
    					andrew
    	
    

Andrew,

 >>    	Who said anything about movies?
 
    In a later note, I lumped the two together, child pornography in either
    a written or filmed medium. 

 >>    	Ask the estate of Robert Maplethorpe.
 
    I have no idea as to whom you are referring to.

       - Larry

    re: .108

    John, agreed.  There are many subtleties like your example of the baby
    in the bath problem.  "L.A. Law" had an interesting case where the mother
    of a young girl had her ex-husband arrested for sexually abusing their
    daughter.  His lawyer argued that he gives her a bath and cleans her.
    The question arose as to whether he was fondling the child.  It's not
    always so obvious as to what is or what isn't "abuse".

    Possibly the issue of child pornography is not as black and white as
    I'm professing, but someone brought up the question as to why punish
    the consumer?  (ie the reader or distributor should have 1st Amendment
    rights to read or view this material).  For me it's painstakingly
    clear, why we should, for others it's not.  Similar argument for drug
    users.  Why punish the end user?  He or she's only a victim.  Why not
    punish the producer/seller instead.  Again, I'll submit that we should
    punish both to stem the tide of that poison.

    Hmmm...not very leftist views for a devout liberal, eh?

       - Larry
                                            
    

    Robert Maplethorpe was a photographer -- a portraitist -- he
    died last year of AIDS -- his is the photography exhibit that
    has Jesse Helms and so many others up in arms about pornography.
    
    Within the exhibit are a small number of photographs of children;
    since I have not seen these photographs, I can only repeat their
    description -- they are photographs of semi-nude and nude children.
    
    Are these photographs child pornography?  Or are they art?
    
    Incidentally: to Steve, and Kris, but especially to you, Kwame:
    I did *not* change the base topic of this note when I began to
    ask the questions I asked -- you all understand that, don't you?
    
    					andrew

    re. .112
    
    Understood, Andrew.  I'm glad someone is keeping this topic from being
    strictly a 'slash 'n bash'.
    
    Kris

    Andrew,

      Now I remember.  If memory serves, a lot of people were upset because
    the National Endowment for the Arts (a publicly supported agency)
    was sponsoring this, so people got the idea that their tax $$$ were
    being used to display pornography.  This may not be the case that
    you're referring to, let me know if otherwise.  I don't know how I feel
    about this.  Art is a very subjective thing and what is tasteful to one
    person, may not be to someone else.  Not knowing anything further, I would
    probably allow it under the guise of artistic freedom and expression. 
    If the children were shown being abused or touching each others
    genitals, I would become skeptic about the artistic value of such a
    piece.  This is an excellent example of "I'll know it when I see it".

        - Larry
                                                             

    That's the exhibit.
    
    Now, you say "I'll know it when I see it."
    
    For you, this may "cross the line", and to you, it's pornography.
    For others, it may not, and to them, it's art.
    
    it's entirely possible that something you consider art -- tasteful,
    powerful, making a bold statement -- may be considered filthy
    pornography by someone else --  
    
    Who decides?  You?  Me?  Kwame?  
    
    					andrew

    Andrew,
    
      In .114 I said that I would allow it.  I did not say that it crossed
    the line, nor did I consider it pornography.  I did say that some
    people viewed it as that and I alluded that people probably wouldn't
    have made a big stink if the NEA wasn't sponsoring it.  The truth is,
    our tax dollars are used to support many things that I could consider
    "obscene" like extravagent parties for top politicians and nuclear
    weapons to name two.
      
      I'll admit that I am outside the art world.  My idea of "good art"
    is "David" or "Mona Lisa", but I respect other people's opinions.
    What I considered to be child pornography was limited to films and
    publications that contained scenes of children performing sex acts with
    eachother, with adults, with animals, whatever.  This to me has no
    artistic value and seeing how children can be scarred for life
    emotionally as well as physically going through such an ordeal, I see
    little reason NOT to fine or prosecute the individuals responsible,
    including the end-user who supports it.
    
       - Larry

    I've seen Mapplethorpe's kiddie pictures.  They aren't porn by any
    stretch of the imagination.  (Unless Baroque cherubs now count as child
    pornography too.)
    
    Actually, like his portraits, they're a little too cutesy for my
    taste... 
    
    Ray