1. IrvingSnodgrass - March 9, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
A new dialogue in Slate between Christopher Buckley and Michael Sandel explores this question. The following intro from Michael Kinsley should get you thinking:
"When is it OK to betray a friend? The news these days offers many case studies. Linda Tripp taped her girl-talk with Monica for the special prosecutor. Christopher Hitchens swore an affidavit that fingered his friend Sid Blumenthal for possible perjury. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is giving a Lifetime Achievement Oscar to Elia Kazan, who famously "named names" to the House Committee on Un-American Activities during the McCarthy era.
"One extreme position was staked out by E.M. Forster, who famously said, "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." What if Forster's friend had a bomb and was on his way to a day care center? Does anyone believe that snitching is always wrong? At the other extreme, does anyone believe that friendship has no claims over the truth? There are highway signs around Seattle urging people to snitch on carpool lane cheaters by calling the number 764-HERO. Would it be heroic to pick up your cell phone and report to the police that your friend was driving in the carpool lane with only herself and you in the car?
[continued]
2. IrvingSnodgrass - March 9, 1999 - 9:09 AM PT
"Presumably the morally correct place to be is somewhere between these extremes. Sometimes ratting on friends is good, sometimes it is bad. But when? Tripp and Hitchens both felt they were helping to bring a bad person (President Clinton) to justice. Is that a good enough reason? Does it hurt Tripp's case that destroying Clinton might also serve her ideological beliefs? Or does it hurt Hitchens' case that his action might have done harm to political values he claims to believe in? There are friends and close friends and best friends: Does that make a difference?
"Beyond the issue of snitching, when, in general, should friendship trump principles, and vice versa? Norman Podhoretz has just published a memoir titled Ex-Friends about losing or abandoning old friendships as his political values changed. Podhoretz himself seems uncharacteristically ambivalent about this. On the one hand, it is arid and bloodless to let politics infect all spheres of life. On the other hand, it trivializes both politics and friendship to say you should be friends with people whose values you deplore. So how should you decide?
"And what if the trade-off involves not friends but family? Next month Tony Hiss will publish a memoir of his father, Alger Hiss, describing him as being "honest to a fault." Are you morally required to face the truth about your dad?"
3. Jenerator - March 9, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
I think that honesty and truth are principles we should all strive harder to live by. If we lived more honestly and truthfully *so* many of the messes we encounter would be avoided.
4. CharlieL - March 9, 1999 - 10:29 AM PT
Message #1 - "What if Forster's friend had a bomb and was on his way to a day care center?"
I think there is a great deal of difference between "snitching" and reporting a violent crime about to happen. That example has nothing to do with this thread.
5. elliot803 - March 9, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
I think the discussion in the Slate dialogue so far has been interesting, but I'm not sure there's much more to say. Probably almost everyone agrees that snitching on friends is justified in some circumstances and not in others. As both participants say, it's a matter of judgement.
6. ChristiPeters - March 9, 1999 - 11:10 AM PT
snitching and morality from the viewpoint of my eleven year old daughter:
A friend of hers had not finished all of her assignments by the day the kids' folders needed to be handed in. She asked my daughter if she could copy her work using as justification being absent the day the assignment was given. My daughter pointed out that she had had three weeks since then to make up the assignment and refused to let her copy on the grounds that it was cheating. Enter two more friends into the scenario who sympathize with the would-be copyist and allow her to copy off them. My daughter, decided that, yes, cheating is bad, but snitching is also bad. Therefore, while she felt ok with herself about not allowing the kid to copy off her, she did not snitch to the teacher about the other copying going on.
Since I am The Mom, I am expected to make clear, absolute, "true" pronouncements on all moral dilemmas. So I was asked "should I have told on them, Mom?"
What do y'all think?
(Yes, I will tell you what I said to her, but I want to hear your answers first.)
7. BobaFett - March 9, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
Personally, I'd love to snitch out a friend.
But I don't have any "hot information."
Or even any "friends."
8. ChristinO - March 9, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
I say don't snitch in this case. She protected herself and the integrity of her own work. The most she can gain from revealing what she knows is a bad rep from people who have already proved to be unscrupulous. More than likely the cheaters will be caught, but if they aren't how much damage is it going to do and is Li'l Darlin really responsible for it? The damage is that her classmate isn't learning what she should. Is it Li'l Darlin's responsibility that her classmate get an education? Not to this extent. The responsibility lies with the classmate, her parents and the teacher.
9. BTerry - March 9, 1999 - 12:11 PM PT
I would have to use my judgment in such a situation, as many do. However, the two cited examples aren't very good to use. Often people will refrain from "snitching" if they believer the person in question was pure in motive or was not benefiting at the cost of others. But in these examples, we have nothing of the sort. Lewinsky was asking a "friend" to commit perjury. Parties adversely affected: Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones at the least. Blumenthal was committing perjury (or libel). Parties adversely affected: Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, the grand jury.
10. harper - March 9, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
I think that this an issue with no black or white, only shades of grey. For me, it would depend on the situation. Also, since I believe in karma, I would have to consider what would happen to me if I snitched. For example, I never have testified to HUAC about friends who were Communists or that HUAC THOUGHT were Communists because I feel that one's politics is nobody's business for the most part (unless they were plotting something nefarious). I would never tell a Fed that some one I knew was or had smoked marijuana. Once again, that's nobody's business and doesn't harm anyone.
I have no admiration for Robert E. Lee. As an Army Officer and a graduate of West Point, I feel that he owed his loyalty to the United States not the Commonwealth of Virginia, especially since he apparently didn't believe in any of the causes that prompted the Civil War. If he had believed passionately in a cause, he might have been justified in what he did. I think the U.S. was far too kind to him after the Civil War. Nowadays we would have at least put him in Leavenworth for life for treason.
While I don't believe in being a tattletale, I certainly think one has a moral obligation to truthfully answer questions about such things as cheating on tests.
Value judgments, relative morality. It's difficult to know when to do the right thing. It's something you have to think about. Like lying. There is a difference between telling a person that the dress looks good on her when it doesn't and lying to conceal a crime.
11. CalGal - March 9, 1999 - 12:47 PM PT
Christi,
Actually, I had the same thing happen when I was 14, with one exception. I told them no, they found someone else, and when they all got caught, they dragged me into it. When it was discovered that I had not told on them, I got in trouble as well.
So I think the snitching rule comes down to whether or not you're going to be an accessory if you don't snitch, and how you feel about the shit that will happen if your knowledge is discovered.
And while it's easy to say, "Well, you shouldn't get in trouble for not betraying a confidence", consider that logic applied to a similar adult situation: Two friends ask you to help them sell the company's secrets, or to jump ship to another company with some key ideas. You say no, you don't tell, you get caught--you're canned. And shouldn't you be? Where was the integrity in protecting your friends?
My response, should Spawn be caught in that situation today, would be to advise him tell his friends to fess up to a teacher that they asked him--or that he would have to tell. No hard feelings, and all that. Barring that, I'd tell him that *I* would tell the teacher, which wouldn't look good for him. But in any event, the friends would be warned prior to the notification.
Therefore, for me the deciding issue is whether or not I approve of the actions and whether or not simply by knowing about them I would get into trouble. If I approve of the action and support it, then I would protect the friend and knowingly accept the consequences of this protection, should it be found out. If I disapprove of the action but the knowledge won't get *me* into trouble, I'd probably disassociate myself from the friend and keep my mouth shut. (this is the toughest call of the three, for me.) If I don't approve of it, don't want to be involved, and the fact that I knew would get me into trouble? Hey. You just picked the wrong person to ask.
12. bubbaette - March 9, 1999 - 12:48 PM PT
I don't see what Linda Tripp did as "snitching on a friend", so much as setting up an acquaintance and then manipulating them into the trap you've prepared, all under the guise of friendship.
13. ChristiPeters - March 9, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Sorry y'all, my crown repair took almost 3 hours!!! (most of it sitting around waiting).
I've got to run now, so I'll just say I led Lil' Darlin' through a lot of thought on the subject playing "what would/could have happened if..."
Personally, in my own life I come close to CalGal's:
"If I approve of the action and support it, then I would protect the friend and knowingly accept the consequences of this protection, should it be found out. If I disapprove of the action but the knowledge won't get *me* into trouble, I'd probably disassociate myself from the friend and keep my mouth shut. (this is the toughest call of the three, for me.) If I don't approve of it, don't want to be involved, and the fact that I knew would get me into trouble? Hey. You just picked the wrong person to ask."
However, that's not what I told Lil' Darlin'.
TTFN
14. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 5:31 AM PT
bubba: Just change the name and you have Bill Clinton trying to falsely "snitch" on his girlfriend, Monica, when The Impeached President told White House aide Sid Vicious that she was a stalker.
He was "snitching" and he was lying but that's okay with you, it seems.
15. Judithathome - March 10, 1999 - 5:42 AM PT
shaka:
Monica told Tripp that she was a stalker...probably shared that with her "boyfriend", too. She is, after all, just a little air-headed snip of a thing who giggles and blushes as she makes her way thru the media jungle. Poor lamb.....
16. cllrdr - March 10, 1999 - 9:38 AM PT
And Latin and Central American death squads are O.K. with you, right Shack-up? Just putting our tax dollars to good use, I suppose.
17. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 9:47 AM PT
cellar: I suppose...if I knew what the fuck you were talking about.
Judith: Actually, according to Monica in "As the World Turns," it was the White House "meanies" who spread the rumors that she was a stalker. Lovely Linda had nothing to do with it, she was just trying to protect herself from those same WH crackers who hate women.
(yawn) This is an old story, told many times.
18. cllrdr - March 10, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT
Ask Jesse, Shack-up. Go ahead -- ask him.
19. Judithathome - March 10, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
shaka:
You brought it up, dearheart.
But I seem to recall several of her highschool victims calling her a stalker; her good "friends" who didn't mind snitching so they could get 15 seconds of fame on HardCopy.
20. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Judith: Okay, if you say so, mommy. I don't know what Monica's high school friends said on Hard Copy.
21. bubbaette - March 10, 1999 - 10:09 AM PT
Shaka
There you go saying "fuck" again. You kiss Miss Vermont with that mouth?
22. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
JESSE: TELL ME WHAT CELLAR IS TALKING ABOUT
23. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 10:14 AM PT
bubba: Sorry. When I'm under my Shaka ID, I get confused. But I shouldn't, and I'll try not to use it again.
P.S. Actually my wife can swear like a sailor, especially when it serves her purposes and she's trying to get my attention.
I know this is hard to believe, but I'm not the easiest man to life with.
24. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 10:16 AM PT
life=live
25. bubbaette - March 10, 1999 - 10:17 AM PT
According to her friends and co-workers at the white house, before she even had her fling with the Pres., Monica was a stalker -- as that term tends to be defined in D.C. -- someone who relentlessly seeks face-time with the boss.
So Monica and Bill are bimbos -- they're both still heads above Tripp in the character department.
26. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Ronald Reagan was a snitch. I love how it always gets covered up or flat out denied that while he was President of the Screen Actors Guild he turned in and testified against his fellow actors for HUAC.
27. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
ChristinO: I love it when liberals support Stalinists. It says a lot about them.
28. bubbaette - March 10, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
Shaka
So you gotta thing for Joe McCarthy too?
29. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 12:04 PM PT
No, Paul McCartney.
But I don't think that those people who supported the communists (Stalin, Beria, etc) in the late 1930s and 1940s are blameless in what happened during the early days of the Cold War.
30. bubbaette - March 10, 1999 - 12:10 PM PT
Shaka
I thought that America was supposed to be the free marketplace of ideas in which the truth would out and all were free to speak their mind. I reckon that's a dangerous abuse of the First Amendment, huh?
31. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
Robert and John F. Kennedy were big fans of Joe McCarthy, if my memory serves me well.
RFK actually worked for Tailgun Joe in the early 1950s when life was so insane in the U.S.
I've only become interested in this topic since the talk of the Academy Award boycott of the great film director Elia Kazan. I obviously don't support it.
32. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 12:37 PM PT
Shaka1,
If any of those people had been involved in treasonous acts then I wouldn't have a problem. They were not involved in treasonous acts and the vast majority of them were not and never had been members of the communist party. Did you know that Ginger Rogers protested the Commie sentiment that her young daughter was forced to say on screen? Do you know what that Commie sentiment was? The line was "Share and share alike, right? That's the American Way!"
That is the kind of crap that people were incarcerated and exiled for. They weren't Stalinists; they were artists and their First Ammendment rights were trampled on to the shame and detriment of this country.
33. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
Sorry, ChristinO. Anyone who supported and/or apologized for what communists were doing in the late 1930s, deserves criticism.
The Stalin apologists in the states went from supporting Hitler in 1939 when Russia and Germany "shared" Poland, to attacking the Nazis in 1941 when Hitler invaded mother Russia.
Given the opportunity in the United States, these same communists should have executed Americans who disagreed with them. Look what they did in eastern Europe after World War II.
I suggest you read Whitaker Chamber's "Witness."
34. CalGal - March 10, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
Christin,
Well, actually, many of them were truly Communists back then.
Yes, the McCarthy era doomed many people to oblivion who weren't actually communists. That was when the film industry got nervous because of all the bullshit oversight. But I believe that the original Ten--and many others--were truly Communists. And some percentage of them were still.
I am only quibbling with your assertion, not your sentiment.
35. CalGal - March 10, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
"And some percentage of them were still [at the time of the hearings]."
I should add that I'm operating from memory here, so Cellar or someone might be more accurate.
36. shaka1 - March 10, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
OK, readers. Tell me, in this instance, who is the snitch?
This copy is from Fray's Archives. CellarDweller writes this on September 17th, 1998, in the U.S. Elections thread:
"Hey, Judge d, FrayVader's revelation (in Suggestions) that Spudboy is David Neiwert, author of a recent Salon piece on Helen Hubba Chenoweth, should have you quaking in your boots. Too few degrees of separation, no?
In this instance, who's responsible for revealing Spudboy's real name (if it is his real name)?
In the past, Spudboy has always blamed tommyD, but it looks like Irv and Cellar spread the information.
37. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
CalGal,
Yes, every member of the Hollywood 10 was or had been a registered member of the Communist Party, but the early hearings were not targeting only members of the Communist Party.
None of these people was guilty of treason or conspiring to commit treason. The Communist Party was not illegal. These people were called before the inquisition for participating in legal and Constitutionally protected activities namely freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The truth of the matter is that as it regards Hollywood the Red Scare was not about busting Communist influence but about busting labor unions.
38. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
Even now I think there's a huge stigma in America attached to identifying oneself as a communist, a stigma that doesn't exist or is much less powerful in Europe, partly, I think, because the word doesn't conjure up such false and stereotypical images over there as it does here.
And you're still asked if you are or have ever been a member of a communist organization when you apply for both permanent residence and citizenship in the U.S. If you answer "yes," this apparently greatly complicates your application.
And if you're a polygamist or have ever lived off the earnings of a prostitute, God help you!
39. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
What are the false and stereotypical images of a communist?
Communists in continental Europe have been committed democrats for a while (except the French communists, who remained Stalinist until quite recently). In America, communists have been either Trotskyites or Marxist-Leninists. CP-USA even got funding from the Soviet Union. Communists in America were rightly stigmatised.
40. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
That's because of the (gasp) rampant Socialism in Europe. Everybody knows the Europeans are Pinkos.
The funny thing is that at the time of the Red Scare the Communist Party in the US was one of the smallest in the world.
btw, Elliot, does this mean you were a pimp in the UK or were your "youthful indiscretions" a result of polygamy?
41. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
"What are the false and stereotypical images of a communist?"
That it's equivalent to Stalinism.
" In America, communists have been either Trotskyites or Marxist-Leninists. CP-USA even got funding from the Soviet Union. Communists in America were rightly stigmatised."
Many or most of those stigmatized in the McCarthy hearings were no longer even members of the Party. They were not rightly stigmatized.
42. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 3:29 PM PT
Christin:
I ran a brothel in Harrow-on-the-Hill, right next to where pseudo went to school.
43. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:31 PM PT
I wasn't talking about the innocents of the McCarthy era.
Most communists have been Leninists and Trotskyites, and they were bad enough, deserving of stigma.
44. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT
Well, you could still never be acused of pandering to PE.
45. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT
My school was Wattleflap, and it had a troupe of resident whores. No need to outsource.
46. MrSocko - March 10, 1999 - 3:37 PM PT
Well, this fellow Hitchens ought to be deported. He's a bombastic jerk, a show-off, a creepy little snake posing as a journalistic plenipotentiary, an Oxbridge wanker, utterly lacking in ethics and fibre, and a bad and bogus writer who wrote a particularly toe-curling article in a recent Vanity Fair on Australia. He likes to think of himself as a rebel, an outsider, somebody who kicks against the pricks, but anybody familiar with the Washington diplomatic circuit knows that the truth of the matter is far more conventional: his freeloading at British embassy cocktail functions is well known and a source of shame to the British government, whose authorities have repeatedly asked this badly dressed twit to cease despoiling their gatherings with his fey recitations of Thomas Paine before unsuspecting groups middleaged women who have touched life at many points.
47. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 3:47 PM PT
pseudo:
"Most communists have been Leninists and Trotskyites, and they were bad enough, deserving of stigma."
I don't know that that's true and even if it is, it still doesn't mean they deserve to be stigmatized in the way that communists have been and still are in America.
MrSocko:
"Well, this fellow Hitchens ought to be deported."
You can't deport citizens.
48. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
The man is a dull tool.
49. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
Anyway, I think Hitchens' main flaw, if he has one, is that he's a drunk.
50. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
Elliot: The affiliations of true communists (as opposed to falsely accused ones) in the United States have been well known for a long time. You're the only one who doesn't know. Democratic "Eurocommunist" types are unknown for the most part outside continental Europe, and even they were Stalinists until the 1960s.
51. ChristinO - March 10, 1999 - 3:51 PM PT
The problem with most drunks is that they don't drink enough to put them under the table before they cause problems.
52. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:52 PM PT
ERRATA (Message #50)
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, democratic "Eurocommunist" types didn't exist outside continental Europe....
53. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
I suppose there may have been a few exceptions here and there, but established American communities, particularly the Stalinist CP-USA, were no exceptions.
54. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 3:54 PM PT
shit
...established American communist parties....
55. CoralReef - March 10, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
Message #46
I think you'd get a kick out of this letter from Hitchens in the London Review of Books, if you haven't seen it already. I especially like his quoting an Alexander Cockburn take on him.
56. CoralReef - March 10, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
"His case against me is one of latent and blatant homophobia, of the sort that if directed at another target might be 'denounced with vigour and might well have led to criminal proceedings or civil litigation'. By happy chance, I can refer him to a recent 'outing', conducted by Alexander Cockburn in the tabloid New York Press of the first week of February: 'Many's the time male friends have had to push Hitchens's mouth, fragrant with martinis, away, as, amid the welcomes and goodbyes, he seeks their cheek or lips.' Some good critics regard this as one of Cockburn's more polished pieces, especially dealing as it does with the absolute and inflexible requirement never to rat on an old pal. I offer it, though, as an example of a badge of supposed shame that one may wear with pride."
57. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 4:06 PM PT
"...even if it is, it still doesn't mean they deserve to be stigmatized in the way that communists have been and still are in America."
Why not?
58. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
PE:
I'm not sure anyone should be "stigmatized" for beliefs, no matter how misguided, as long as they are content to compete in the free market of ideas rather than imposing their beliefs through coercion.
59. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
pseudo:
"Why not?"
Because it's unjust.
60. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 4:16 PM PT
Well, by "stigmatise" I don't mean that communists should have been rounded up, carried away to government branding stations, and branded with a scarlet sign reading PNG (persona non grata, not Papua New Guinean).
I simply mean that communists, by which I mean Leninists, Trotskyites, Stalinists and Maoists, should be treated no differently from Fascists and Nazis -- i.e., socially ostracised. But today they should be viewed largely as mental defectives.
61. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Message #59
Do you believe employers should be able to fire an employee for belonging to the KKK or some Nazi part? I do. And I think an employer should also have the right to sack an employee for being a Marxist-Leninist.
62. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 4:25 PM PT
pseudo:
"Do you believe employers should be able to fire an employee for belonging to the KKK or some Nazi part?"
In most cases, no.
63. Greystoke - March 10, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus
"And I think an employer should also have the right to sack an employee for being a Marxist-Leninist."
In America, I believe that employers do have that right. Marxist-Leninists are not one of our protected groups.
64. KurtMondaugen - March 10, 1999 - 4:33 PM PT
"Do you believe employers should be able to fire an employee for belonging to the KK or some other Nazi party?"
Absolutely not, any more than I believe an employer should be able to fire anyone for being gay, black, clinically depressed, lactose intolerant, or a member of Eckankar. This is under the condition, though, that the employee doesn't, say, hang a Nazi flag in the breakroom or unduly harrass fellow employees who may happen to be gay, black, etc. (in which case I tend to think fellow employees would take action towards silencing the rube much faster than an employer would).
65. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 4:34 PM PT
In the U.S. the vast majority of employees may be fired "at will" by their employers with no recourse. An employee covered by a typical union contract may be fired only "for cause" which does not include being a nazi or communist or hardshell Baptist. A few (and growing number) of states have statutes that offer some protection through the courts against variously defined unfair dismissals. The most common one is against dismissals of whistleblowers on illegal activities.
66. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
I think at least some Civil Rights laws provide protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliation, and many companies have policies against such discrimination (I work for such a company).
67. Greystoke - March 10, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
Elliot
"I think at least some Civil Rights laws provide protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliation."
I think you are wrong about that.
68. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
Message #64
I disagree.
I also don't think those Nazis in Skochee or wherever in the American hinterland it was, should have been allowed to march through the streets. And I think it's both feasible and just to penalise certain kinds of hate speech, particularly public racist speech. The French do it, the Germans do it, and the Australians do it, and the foundations of their democracy are not exactly crumbling. But of course American liberals are as close to being free speech absolutists as American conservatives are property rights absolutists. The deep strain of hinterland libertarianism runs deep among all Americans.
69. cllrdr - March 10, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
I thought this thread might go somewhere.
It's not.
Everybody'es reverting to type and we're once agains talking about Baptists and Nazis and Commies.
Hitchens is an asshole.
Linda Tripp's a creep.
Monica's an idiot.
Clinton's a cad.
I'm sure I've left a ton of others out, but I'm much too tired.
I wish there were some way to get Falwell off my television screen (he seems to be there every time I turn on the set) and Jonah Fucking Goldberg out of "Slate."
I'm just a hopeless romantic, I guess.
70. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 4:46 PM PT
To me, "stigmatize" is a good deal more than getting fired for vocalizing ones opinion. In that case you just move on to another more tolerant employer.
It is more like a scarlet letter or a pink triangle. Or maybe something more subtle like info on you in a database that can be accessed to your detriment. At he very least it is the equivalent of a criminal. Think of the derivation of the word.
71. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
"The French do it, the Germans do it, and the Australians do it, and the foundations of their democracy are not exactly crumbling."
That depends on whether your speech is the speech being banned. We're far more oppressive when it comes to sex speech than they are. Oppression of any kind of speech short of "fire in a crowded theatre" is bad policy.
72. KurtMondaugen - March 10, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
Pseud:
Well, please don't get the impression I approve of the KKK or Nazi rallies, as I certainly don't (and I admire the German efforts to curtail potentially dangerous activities...look at their investigation into Scientology, for example). But I wouldn't deny their right to assemble and express their views (barring any illegal activity entailed in such). Nor would I deny a KKK member the opportunity for gainful employment for his moronic, insipid politics. This is just my personal opinion, and I didn't mean to intrude on the discussion. Just felt compelled to respond to your question to elliot.
73. Greystoke - March 10, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Elliot
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-h):
"Title VII of the Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin as well as religion and/or sex (but not including age or physical disability discrimination). This title applies to all employers, employment agencies, apprenticeship programs and labor unions whose activities affect interstate commerce, including state and local governments and including Americans working abroad for US-based employers. To be covered an employer must have 15 or more employees for each working day of 20 or more weeks in the current or prior year."
This is from the Hawaii Civil Rights Act:
"Part I makes unlawful actions taken or not taken because of or in relation to: race, sex, age, religion, color, ancestry, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or arrest and court record, assignment of income for child support obligations, and National Guard participation."
74. Greystoke - March 10, 1999 - 4:59 PM PT
Elliot
I also found various state laws that forbid termination of employment for refusing to join a union.
So far I have found nothing that mentions political opinion or affiliation. (Of course that doesn't prove that you are wrong.)
75. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 5:04 PM PT
Greystoke:
And the point is?
pseudo:
"And I think it's both feasible and just to penalise certain kinds of hate speech, particularly public racist speech. The French do it, the Germans do it, and the Australians do it, and the foundations of their democracy are not exactly crumbling."
One might reasonably judge it a bad idea despite the fact that it hasn't (yet) caused the foundations of democracy in those countries to crumble.
I think First Amendment law is headed in the direction of fewer restrictions, not more. The silly and unworkable pornography/obscenity distinction, for example, can't last much longer.
76. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 5:06 PM PT
"Oppression of any kind of speech short of 'fire in a crowded theatre' is bad policy."
Why?
77. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 5:07 PM PT
According to Tripp, Stephanopolis, DeeDee Meyers, et al, its okay to snitch on a friend once you determine its in your personal interest to do so. And if Herr Starr is on your ass, its okay to lie, not only to snitch, in order to save it. That's the American Way.
78. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 5:08 PM PT
OMYGAWD! I agree with Elliot. May miracles never cease to happen.
79. Greystoke - March 10, 1999 - 5:09 PM PT
Elliot
"And the point is?"
I was merely challenging you to back up your assertion that "some Civil Rights laws provide protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliation."
If you don't wish to discuss it, that's fine with me.
80. elliot803 - March 10, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
Greystoke:
I might trawl the web for an example or two, but no, I'm not inclined to invest much time and effort in it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-discrimination laws on the books in America, so your two examples that don't mention political affiliation aren't very meaningful, and the question is peripheral to the main issue, anyway.
81. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
"Why?"
Repressing speech doesn't prevent people from holding the opinion. If anything you make martyrs out of the people you prosecute. This is particularly true of political or religious fringe elements. You give credibility to hate thought by actively preventing its expression. It also make it all to easy to start moving politically incorrect speech into the "hate speech" catagory for the political convenience of whoever happens to be in charge.
82. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
I think Greystoke is correct with the possible exception that there may be a few state laws that could be stretched to cover dismissals for political activities which did not affect job performance. I'm not sure about this and I'm practicing law without a license.
Another protected area; employees may not be dismissed or discriminated against for exercising their right to organize and bargain collectively. (Federal law, the National Labor Relations Act) Violations are very common, however, and hard to rectify.
83. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Message #81
All typical bullshit "slippery slope" arguments. In the real life where hate speech laws have been implemented in countries as different as France and Australia, such issues have not been problematic.
"Repressing speech doesn't prevent people from holding the opinion."
I'm not interested in their privately held opinions.
84. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 5:21 PM PT
MrSocko, I agree. Hitchens is hard to like. But Americans are suckers for tweedy guys with English accents.
85. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
There is a natural human inclination to suspect that anything that is prohibited them that is not obviously harmful to them must be a beneft to them. It applies to drugs, pornography and hate speech. Forbidden fruit, you know. The important question is why you think that repressing such speech is a benefit.
86. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
What about snitching on your brother-in-law who cheated on his income tax....or on his wife?
87. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
"as different as France and Australia"
And can you demonstrate a benefit to this?
BTW, slippery slope was only the last argument I made. In this case it is an extremely important one. In this case outlawing "hate" speech in the US would be a law tailor made for oppressing dissenters. It has happened here before.
88. wonkers2 - March 10, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT
Once upon a time I snitched on my alcoholic boss who had been a friend to me but who developed a serious drinking problem which was interfering with his work (and my career). I agonized over what to do but went ahead on the basis that he needed treatment or he would ruin his health and because he was not doing an effective job for the company. Not long after, he retired and was replaced by a total jackass who was not an alcoholic but who screwed up the job even more than did the alcoholic he replaced. He screwed me also. So much for the practicalities of snitching!
89. arkymalarky - March 10, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
I agree with PE. There is a difference between political freedom and the right to promote racist, homophobic, antisemitic and other hate policies, even if it isn't done directly on the job. There's also a difference between "privately held opinions" and open hostility against certain groups of people such as those targeted by the KKK and other associations whose members could obviously not be expected to see co-workers who fall under certain categories as their equals and worthy of fair treatment on the job.
I also grow very tired of the "slippery slope" argument. It can be used to oppose any restriction on human behavior, and speculating what might happen in the remote future if one step is taken in any given direction is a weak defense of inaction, imo.
90. aldavis - March 10, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
Isn't it obvious that serious consideration should be given to amending the 1st amendment? We probably agree that the 2nd amendment should be either done away with or strongly altered. Both amendments were fine for the 18th Century when people were more rational and civil, knew how to use both speach and guns. But now, things have changed. As Hillary Clinton has so wisely advised, there must be some control of the internet, as just one example.
If the "pen is mightier than the sword" the pen must be controlled as well as the gun, the modern day sword. People have no right to hate any group, individuals maybe, but not groups, and to speak hatefully of them must not be tolerated.
91. arkymalarky - March 10, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
"Isn't it obvious that serious consideration should be given to amending the 1st amendment?"
No. Pretending your sarcasm isn't: this is not an all or nothing world.
92. aldavis - March 10, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
arkymalarky
"No. Pretending your sarcasm isn't:this is not an all or nothing world."
I don't understand your message. I just sent an e-mail BlueMountain greeting card only to learn that someone has been e-mailing lies that BlueMountain cards have a virus. Don't you think things like that should be prohibited? Souldn't there be a government agency to moniter internet activity? I am shocked at some of the things I hear and read. Just as guns must be controlled to protect us from the violent people, speach, which has dangerous possibilities must be controlled. It is nonsense to leave free speach in just anybodies hands.
93. arkymalarky - March 10, 1999 - 8:04 PM PT
Hahaha. Yes, and if I were Queen of the World I know whose hands I'd remove it from first.
Regulation is not equal to elimination. It's not necessary to adjust or remove an amendment to put reasonable limits on its exercise. Several amendments in the Bill of Rights already have reasonable limitations.
94. aldavis - March 10, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
arkymalarky
Who might that be? Don't you agree that just because something was good for one age does not mean it is good for all time? There once was a commonly held belief that honesty and character was a meaningful requirement for leadership. We know know that was only then. This is now.
The Founding Fathers had a great fear of a too strong Federal Government and had to fight hard to get the Constitution ratified. That is why they created the Ten Amendments and especially the 10th Amendment. But we trash most of the 10 Amendments all the time and many leaders would trash more, it seems. They scoff at the idea that they cannot not take property without due compensation. Well, why should something so ephemeral as speech be protected? Perhaps this thread is the wrong place for this discussion, but above it seems the concept was touched on, and since most posters are now off work and unable to post, I thought it wouldn't hurt.
95. arkymalarky - March 10, 1999 - 8:25 PM PT
Thanks for the civics lesson, Al. I had no idea what was happening with the Bill of Rights and this Great Nation of ours. I would love to discuss the Constitution with you, but your post made my eyes mist over and I've got to run have a bedtime snack. I've got a sudden urge for apple pie.
Later!
96. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 8:26 PM PT
AuNaturel: The benefit is social harmony and social justice.
Aldavis: You're simply using a variation on the slippery slope argument, except with sophomoric sarcasm. To quell race-baiting speech does not mean we must stifle other speech.
97. aldavis - March 10, 1999 - 8:38 PM PT
Pseudoerasmus
Of course I wish I were a lot smarter than I am. Posting on the Fray kind of reminds me of my college days at S.F. State. Almost every class I took, I started with the feeling I had to be the dumbest guy in the room, even dumber than most of the women. But by the time the class was finished, while I wasn't the smartest, I wasnt't quite the dumbest either.
Now, from reading your posts, it seems you are very smart, and my sarcasm is quite obvious.
But what troubles me about the points you have made about "hate speech" is that it seems you would like to be the judge, and I really am not yet convinced you are quite that smart.
Since Evie has just returned with the wine and I have no apple pie, I cannot continue this discussion, but I certainly will check back, if you wish to castigate me further.
98. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 9:59 PM PT
"There is a difference between political freedom and the right to promote racist, homophobic, antisemitic and other hate policies"
This is the most assinine statement I've heard yet. Arky supports freedom for everyone unless Arky finds it objectionable. Unobjectionable sentiments do not need protection. Replace "racist, homophobic, antisemitic and other hate policies" with "miscagention, homophilia, unChristian and other hate policies" and you sound identical to the White Aryan Brotherhood. Political freedon *is* the right to promote policies other people hate.
"I also grow very tired of the "slippery slope" argument. It can be used to oppose any restriction on human behavior"
It is a valid objection, even if you do get tired of it. Pro-choice people use the identical objection to even modest restrictions on abortion. No retriction on human behavior should ever be taken lightly, especially one that is so clearly unconstitutional.
"speculating what might happen in the remote future"
Or contemplating was has happened in the not so distant past. Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize it is *never* the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship.
99. AuNaturel - March 10, 1999 - 10:22 PM PT
PE
"The benefit is social harmony and social justice."
You should first demonstrate that banning such speech is even possible in the US without causing greater civil disorder than it would resolve. There are many who would consider it a call to arms. Then, assuming we haven't turned a bunch of obnoxious fools who do little more harm than make fools of themselves into a guerrilla movement, you need to prove your benefits outweigh the irreparable damage you've done to the first amendment and political discourse in general.
Secondly, "social justice" simply doesn't exist. It is a buzz word popular in the left who seem incapable of accepting the indivdual. (Maybe it's because they are socialist?) Justice, like rights, exist only on an individual basis. More groupthink from some one who ought to know better.
100. Pseudoerasmus - March 10, 1999 - 10:39 PM PT
Social justice exists no more or no less than individual justice. These are both just constructed concepts. They aren't written in the Milky Way somewhere.