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.

They published his opinion as an editorial. An editorial is not and has never been an endorsement by anyone other than the person who wrote it.

(By the way, I didn't get the impression that they were "sarcastic" - do you think that was his intent?)

You don't find an editorial column titled "God of the Universe" sarcastic? His opinions are clearly not sarcastic, despite his childish attempts to use the tool.

Take a look at his web sites and you will see an individual who is clearly an emotionally damaged, self-deluding intellectual.

Racist hatred isn't "controversial," it's stupid and destructive.

No. _Actual_ freedom of speech is controversial.

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.

"Close to" does not make it an incitement of violence. An incitement of violence IS illegal and I don't see any arrests or lawsuits taking place.

I did not and do not make the claim that he should be free from being responsible for his viewpoints or from the consequences of his viewpoints. Quite the opposite.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, this kind of speech was commonplace.

How is my age a factor? We can talk about anecdotal experiences of racism for a long time without addressing the actual point.

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.

I agree that it is wrong and I agree that society, on average, _believes_ that suppressing this is a way of confronting racism.

However, I disagree that it really is a way of confronting racism; it is merely a way to drive it underground and not have to face it. That is not confrontation, that is passive aggressive avoidance of the problem and allows many pundits to claim that racism is no longer an issue in todays society.

I recognize that today's society prefers this approach to dealing with many problems, but I hardly agree with it.

In point of fact, there are those in the Asian-American community who also agree:

From sfgate.com (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/27/MNGTCOBI921.DTL):

David Lee of the Chinese American Voters Education Committee said Eng's statement echoes the feelings of some Asian Americans. He said that rather than condemning the paper, black and Asian people should participate in a town hall-style meeting to address tension he said exists between the two communities.

"There is a segment that feels the way Eng does, but the sentiment is underground and not brought to the surface," Lee said. "If you don't have a discussion, then I think it allows these types of views to fester and turn into something much more negative. Rather than refute and bury this, we should be calling for a community dialogue to address this."