--- Robert Paul <robert.paul@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I hope I'm not alone in thinking that imprisoning > Holocaust deniers > raises real philosophical issues; What exactly is there in the subject of hate speech laws that calls for further reflection? An honest question, as I see neither no evidence nor theoretical basis to assume that they actually discourage hate speech. And there is the free speech issue, I'd argue that there are no expections beyond the immediate and obvious physical effect cases (shouting "Fire!"). But even if there are, I don't see why picking on an ethnic group is one. Certainly there are cases when an ethnic group does in fact enjoy unearned privileges, say the Sunnis in Saddam's Iraq for now well known example. Seeing neither practical nor moral grounds for hate speech laws, I dismiss them as feel-good legistalation. That is something we outlaw simply because we find it disgusting, which however well intented is effectively corruption. On the other hand, I guess an argument could be made that there certainly are cases where esthetic arguments are legit, for example urban planning. Governments protect and encourage things the citizens find beautiful and valuable, think public funding of museums and parks. So why not the other way around, if something is extremely ugly and disgusting, why can it not be banned? What other grounds do we have for favoring parks over industrial areas for example? I still think this fails on the effectiveness, that is hate speech laws arguably do not discourage hate speech. And there is something unjust about sending a person to jail for simply being disgusting, unjust as in a withchunt. Cheers, Teemu Helsinki, Finland __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html