It's certainly possible to discuss racism without actually espousing it. Nor is it necessary to print inflammatory, racist remarks in a newspaper in order to foster healthy debate on the subject - any more than it is necessary to print kiddie porn in order to get people to think about that. And now the discussion has to take a giant step backward; instead of talking about the more subtle, invidious forms of racism that are prevalent nowadays, we are back to yammering about the overt bigotry of yesteryear. That's not an improvement.
Newspapers are responsible for their content. By running the column, without any disclaimers or context, Asian Weekly implicitly endorsed the idea that Eng's repulsive opinions are worth considering. (By the way, I didn't get the impression that they were "sarcastic" - do you think that was his intent?)
Racist hatred isn't "controversial," it's stupid and destructive. Free speech isn't free from responsibility, nor is it an unlimited freedom. We are not, for example, free to threaten violence against another person, or to incite others to violence. Racist hate speech, which this came pretty close to, has a long association with racist violence - the one feeds on the other.
I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, this kind of speech was commonplace. And it fostered the idea that it was OK to hate black people (still often called "niggers" then), because we all knew they were lazy/promiscuous/dishonest/whatever. (Even though hardly anyone of my acquaintance actually knew any black people.) The reason this kind of speech is usually suppressed is that society has generally come around to the idea that it is simply wrong, and there is much to be gained by fostering the idea that these opinions are unacceptable. Suppressing this kind of speech is, in fact, one way of confronting racism.
no subject
Newspapers are responsible for their content. By running the column, without any disclaimers or context, Asian Weekly implicitly endorsed the idea that Eng's repulsive opinions are worth considering. (By the way, I didn't get the impression that they were "sarcastic" - do you think that was his intent?)
Racist hatred isn't "controversial," it's stupid and destructive. Free speech isn't free from responsibility, nor is it an unlimited freedom. We are not, for example, free to threaten violence against another person, or to incite others to violence. Racist hate speech, which this came pretty close to, has a long association with racist violence - the one feeds on the other.
I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, this kind of speech was commonplace. And it fostered the idea that it was OK to hate black people (still often called "niggers" then), because we all knew they were lazy/promiscuous/dishonest/whatever. (Even though hardly anyone of my acquaintance actually knew any black people.) The reason this kind of speech is usually suppressed is that society has generally come around to the idea that it is simply wrong, and there is much to be gained by fostering the idea that these opinions are unacceptable. Suppressing this kind of speech is, in fact, one way of confronting racism.