In the wake of the "Why I Hate Blacks" column

[madbaker]

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. Kenneth Eng has the right to write what he wishes, regardless of how moronic.

But - as the Dixie Chicks learned a couple years back - it is worth remembering that "Free speech" does not mean "Free consequences".

Edited for clarification: Assume I'm an entertainer, or even an editorial writer. It is my free speech right to say publicly that, for example, I think blue jeans are stupid and anyone who wears them is a brain-dead fashion victim.

But it is not a violation of my free speech rights when jean-wearers stop buying my product, and Levi's pulls their sponsorship.

Comments

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Malarkey. Bigoted idiots are a dime a dozen; what good does it do to give one of them a bullhorn? Some people will take that as validation, which is not helpful.

We already know racism is alive and well; don't need to see it in print. Should papers run columns titled "Why I like Kiddie Porn" so we don't forget that's a problem, too? Come on.

[blkeagl.livejournal.com]

Yes, we all know racism exists. However, if the paper hadn't published Eng's article, I certainly would have never known of his individual point of view, however sarcastic, and none of us would be having this discussion. That is the good thing the paper did and should have done.

You are welcome to express your opinion, which is my entire point.

Mine is that repressing free speech just because we hate it is a current American belief that also violates fundamental American values.

Yes, as expressions of free speech, papers SHOULD always run controversial articles, ESPECIALLY when there are people who want to suppress them for their content.

I would MUCH rather know who, explicitly is a hate-monger than force them underground, because it is much more difficult to have a sincere discussion about hate when it is underground.

Attempts to modify language use are actually excellent when done for reasons of trying to more precisely convey intent and meaning, but banning or changing words because they make people uncomfortable fall into the same misguided logical fallacy.

People need to learn how to confront racism and surpressing it is NOT facing it.

All, IMO, naturally. Please feel free to discuss. Or is discussion, malarkey?

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

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.

[blkeagl.livejournal.com]

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."