FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[C. G. Estabrook]

You don't want to ban hate speech?

Then I obviously did not understand what you wrote.  I thought this thread began
as an attempt to ban what Lou Dobbs was saying -- which you characterized as
"hate speech" -- from CNN.

What is your position on hate speech and censorship?  --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> O Gee, where to start, Carl... Maybe I'll just point out another of yr 
> hateful little lies -- accusing me of wanting to ban hate speech, which I
> never said, as well you know -- and leave it at that. --Jenifer
> 
> --- On *Thu, 8/13/09, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Subject: Re: FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou
> Dobbs is dangerous To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc:
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:25 PM
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu 
> <http://us.mc449.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=galliher@illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Of course you should shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, if there is a fire.
> 
> The famous line comes from an utterly reprehensible SC decision in 1919,
> Schenck v. United States. "The most stringent protection of free speech would
> not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic,"
> wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. How had Schenck "falsely shouted fire"?  He 
> had distributed flyers opposing the draft!  The SC in its majesty ruled that
> the USG could punish him for that, regardless of the First Amendment.
> 
> (The great jurist Holmes, fond of sententious sayings, was also admired by
> some peculiar people for his ruling in Buck v. Bell [1927], permitting the
> involuntary sterilization of a young Virgina woman: "Three generations of
> imbeciles are enough." Expert testimony came from a field worker for the
> "Eugenics Record Office" -- Dr. Arthur Estabrook...
> 
> 
> No relation, I presume?
> 
> I agree that O.W. Holmes Jr. was significantly overrated as a jurist.
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi eugenics legislation was based on the American practice, established by
> Holmes; the US SC has never reversed the general concept of eugenic
> sterilization.)
> 
> And Holmes' decision in Schenck was not overturned for 50 years. In
> Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the court limited the scope of banned speech to
> that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action
> (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current SC standard -- the
> government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to
> inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
> 
> Obviously the hate speech that Jenifer et al. want banned does not pass that
> test.  --CGE