Letters to the Editor
shannonr
Published Letters: 275 Editor's Choice: 80
-
Bravo
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it that good ideas (like universal health care) die, but bad ideas, like the conclusively debunked nonsense in "The Bell Curve" live forever?
Nice to see some bright (and funny) light shone on that whole claque of bad ideas, because sadly they're creeping back from the margins.
Witness the incredible surge of current interest in crackpot IQ-based ideas in Asia -- based off yet another batch of cooked statistics -- making it seem like 1971 (and '94) all over again.
There _is_ good work done on "intelligence"-- but as Christopher F. Chabris wrote in 1998:
...unfortunately, [...] whenever intelligence is said, "race" is heard; whenever race is said, "genetics" is heard; and whenever genetics is said, "inferiority" is heard, even though these issues are not necessarily connected in any way.
-
Not as cut & dried as it might seem
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the heart of the debate about "hate speech" laws is a simple dichotomy:
Should calling people names be against the law?
If you answer "no" then there's no reason for the "special case" of racially or religiously based name calling. But few people answer no.
If you answer "yes" (and most -- if not all -- legal systems do) then that immediately leads to a classification system of the various names that someone could be called and their degrees of "insult". If the classification system isn't explicit, then the legal system soon provides it via precedent that changes over time.
And if hurt or injury is deemed to have occurred when someone is called a name (and that's assumed by the fact that it's outlawed) then like the difference between striking out and striking back, or between murder and manslaughter, the "intent" of the person doing the name-calling must be assessed. The obvious example to show this: was the name you called me motivated in part by the name I called you first?
So "hate speech" legislation simply grows out of a perfectly natural desire for a court-time-saving codification of insult and intent, much as other crimes have been broken up (petty larceny, larceny, grand larceny, armed robbery, etc.) for the same reasons.
If Canada's hate speech laws didn't exist, and the publisher had been taken to court under pre-existing assault laws (causing the Islamic gentleman to fear he would be under attack by, presumably, crowds of newly-incited anti-Islamic newspaper-cartoon-readers) there would still have to be an assessment of the intent. A court would still have to determine how "insulting" the cartoons were to that guy. Putting some bureaucratic process in place to accomplish this is not, just because it exists, tyranny, regardless of how odd it may seem to have a government employee ask someone what they were thinking.
But let us, for a moment, return to the initial dichotomy. Unlike the vast majority of people, I simply don't believe we have a right not to be insulted. The list of things which could conceivably insult is so long, the bar so low, the test being that someone "felt insulted" so easy to manipulate. The good old "reasonable man" test utterly fails in this instance, as it does in so many others where we try to give negative rights. There are a number of positive rights that could be expanded to fill the "hole" left by legalizing insults. The right to an excellent education, for one. Larnin' is the ultimate (only?) antidote to the ignorance that gives racist name-calling both its sting, and, ironically, its attraction.
I know, however, that I'm not likely to sway a majority to that view. Largely because the majority hold beliefs that are, by common consent, immune to criticism of any kind, great offense simply assumed concomitant with any dissent. Those beliefs? We call those religion and patriotism.
-
@GlennGreenwald
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So by your reasoning, it would be perfeclty appropriate for them to be able to sue him, drag him to court, make him hire a lawyer, and then convince a government official that he shouldn't be punished for what he said? That's what you want the law to allow, right?
No.
Look, Glenn, I'm a fan. But that little "comeback" is just, well, not even wrong. I said no such thing. You've completely missed what I was saying. By miles.
I understand you get a lot of responses and you probably skimmed mine. Unfortunate, but understandable. If you do respond, though, to any specific post, skimming that one is kinda not allowed.
What I was trying to do was shade in the background to the problem of "hate speech" laws, which I totally agree are bad law.
-
You are not alone
[Read the article: I'm a doubting teenager]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are many, many of "us" out there: people who have made the transition from a dark world of certainty and guilt, to a brilliant world of doubt and happiness.
My own journey began when I realized that -- according to the faith of my upbringing -- someone I loved and respected was almost certainly going to hell for contravention of some trivial doctrinal rule, and was absolutely never going to "ask for forgiveness".
I began to wonder about my supposed allegiance to a god that would make such a call. I mean, our imperfect legal systems here on earth try, strenuously, to take into account the situation and circumstances -- even for confessed murderers!
But according to the faith of my birth, you were saved or damned, a sheep or a goat, white or black, guilty or innocent.
And so I began to doubt. And that doubt was the first step on an amazing journey out of the "Land of the Invisibles" (god, the devil, angels both holy and unholy) a land of guilt, fear, hypocrisy, pain, and, yes, certainty.
The journey led to a place of hope, discovery, ethics (as compared to "morals"), pleasure, and, yes, doubt.
Recognize, though, that your parents gave you what they thought was best, almost certainly in love. Intelligently reject it. Pay them back for their love and care by simply being happy and fulfilled. What more could any parent want?
Leave guilt behind. Do not be afraid. Be free to doubt. You are not alone.