Skip to main content

In the midst of the unremittent mouth diarrhea emanating from the Dr. (Ayn) Randian Paul the Crown Prince of Nut Baggery, we’ve yet another of his ideological flock reveal the depths of their mental dysfunction publicly.

Case in point: John Stossel of Fux News who believes that "Privates Businesses ought to be able to Discriminate. They have a Right to Be Racist".

KELLY: Rand Paul is a libertarian. You are a libertarian. He is getting excoriated for suggesting that the Civil Rights act -- what he said was, "Look it's got 10 parts, essentially; I favor nine. It's the last part that mandated no discrimination in places of public accommodation that I have a problem with, because you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they are going to be racist or not racist. Because once the government gets involved, it's a slippery slope." Do you agree with that?

STOSSEL: Totally. I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, "We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys," it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America.

KELLY: OK. When you put it like that it sounds fine, right? So who cares if a blond anchorwoman and mustached anchorman can't go into the lunchroom. But as you know, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around because it was needed. Blacks weren't allowed to sit at the lunch counter with whites. They couldn't, as they traveled from state to state in this country, they couldn't go in and use a restroom. They couldn't get severed meals and so on, and therefore, unfortunately in this country a law was necessary to get them equal rights.

STOSSEL: Absolutely. But those -- Jim Crow -- those were government rules. Government was saying we have white and black drinking fountains. That's very different from saying private people can't discriminate.

First let make one thing perfectly clear : Bigotry is NOT. A. "RIGHT".

It wasn’t just "Government" saying that John, not hardly. In 1963 – the year I was born Mississippi Civil Rights Activist Medger Evers was assassinated by the coward Byron De LA Beckwith.  At the time Evers had been arranging a boycott of businesses in Mississippi that did as Stossel suggests they had "every right" to do. Their response to Evers boycott at the time was "We Don’t Need No Nigger Business!"

Maybe Stossel needs a refresher on the true nature of the openly sanctioned Terrorism that was commonplace in Jim Crow America.

Apparently Stossel thinks that "Bigoty is Bad, mm'kay?" and the Mystical Magical Free Market would simply take care of everything – like eventually.

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

Actually you can know for sure, because the 14th Amendment says the following:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That Constitutional Amendment was Ratified in 1868. 1868! Almost 100 Years before the Civil Rights Act, and apparently the MARKET DIDN’T WORK.

"Because Eventually..."

Isn’t nearly 100 years of eventually not showing up good enough to prove your hair-brained scheme has been a complete and utter failure, John? "Eventually.." never fracking happened.  We already know that because we've seen the proof.

Oh, but Stossel and Paul would argue that Jim Crow Laws and Government were the problem.  OK, but those were Local Laws, State Laws not Federal.  In fact all of those laws issued by the States, under any reasonable reading of the Constitution which included the 14th Amendment – were INVALID.

Yet they went on anyway, because the people and businesses in those States wanted it that way. The Civil Rights Act simply created a Federal enforcement mechanism for what had already in the 14th Amendment for nearly a Century.

People like Stossel and Paul keep talking about "Private" and "Freedom" – but honestly, I do not think they know what those words mean.

Let’s first take "Private" – Stossel claims there’s really no distinction between a Private Club, like say the Boy Scouts who’ve claimed the right to not allow Gays or Athiests to participate and a Privately Owned Business like say Denny’s who during the 90’s systematically refused to properly serve Black Patrons even though they happened to be Secret Service Agents.

Here’s what Stossel and Paul don’t get: "Private Ownership" is not the same thing as "Private Membership".

If you want to create a club with Private Membership – you absolutely do have that right. If you want to have a Gay Students Club, a Black Students Club or a White Transgender Dwarf’s Club you can do that.  But if you want to do Business with the PUBLIC – you have to follow the RULES.

Why?

Because going out and buying a Business License, which is issued by the State Government and sometimes regulated by the Federal Government as authorized by the "Interstate Commerce Clause", does Not MAKE. You. A. GOD!

Right here is the part the where the Randian Alliance trips and falls head first into the wormhole – "Rights" belong to people, not Businesses.  The people, the ones with the Rights are the ones your Doing businesses with.  The people with the Rights, are you’re Customers, your Employees, your Suppliers and your Clients.  Owning and operating a Business isn’t a Right, it’s a privilege that comes with the responsibility of respecting all those other peoples rights.  It says so right in the 14th Amendment.

What’s even worse is that Paul apparently can’t even count to Ten Properly.  Sure, there are Ten Titles within the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but two of them – not one – TWO of them do not address discrimination in the public sphere,

Title II

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

And..

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[23]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[24]

In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.

See that, "Freedom to Associate" belongs to the people - not the Business.

Also technically Title VI prevents discrimination in agencies that receive federal funding, and those agencies can be Privately Owned – y’know like Blackwater/Xe, Wackenhut, KBR or Halliburton?

But apparently these are the provisions that Stossel would like to Repeal – Yes, I said "REPEAL" the Civil Rights Act.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.

No, John - let me say it again - it's not a "Right", it's a Character Flaw.

Although Paul may want to claim the push to repeal part of the Civil Rights Act is merely a red-herring and talking point from the "Liberal Media" – here we have Conservative/Libertarian John Stossel openly endorsing the idea.

Yes, it’s true the First Amendment does include "Freedom of Association" – but you know what it doesn’t have?  Freedom to Disassociate from people you don’t like.

Why Not?

Because those people, the ones with the "Rights", have the right to associate and do commerce with YOU even if you don’t necessarily like them.

Tea Partiers have taken exception to being called "Racist" – but here we have their direct ideological fore-fathers, or at least the son of one of their fore-fathers and a fairly high profile acolyte showing what they really are.

Racism Enablers.

The vast majority of them may not be Card Carrying Members of the Klan or Skinheads (although I do have my questions about Rand Paul’s Neo-Skinhead Oy Band Explorations)  they make the same arguments as Racists, and essentially make them seem Reasonable and Palatable within relatively polite society.

They. Are. Not.

This is poisonous talk.  Beside blocking discrimination on the basis or race and gender, the Civil Rights act also prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of National Origin and Religion. It prevents discrimination against either Christians, or Jews or Muslims alike.  Interesting that the "War on Christmas" – "Assault on Christianity" folks all seem to forget the same Bill that Medger Evers and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave their lives for – protects them too.

We’ve already had another Dr. in Florida attempt to discourage clients who "Voted For Obama" from entering his offices.  How much longer before someone else desides, like Beckwith, to "Thin The Heard" of people they don’t like?

Oh wait.. that’s already happened too – hasn’t it? If you follow Stossel's line of thinking to it's full conclusion, I guess Al Qeada, which I guess could be considered a "business", had a "Right" to Disassociate themselves from the Twin Towers didn't they? The Taliban has right to block girls from going to school and throwing Acid in their Face when they dare to defy that ban. Arizona has the "Right" to toss the 4th Amendment out the window for anyone who looks kinda Swarthy. And BP has the "Right" to completely lie to the government and other businesses in the area about it's safety precautions and it's ability to clean up a spill in the deep gulf.

Not that Stossel or Paul are Endorsing any of that stuff, they just think people business ought to have the "Right", y'know just in case they Feel Like it and clearly what a business feels like doing is paramount.

And don't worry, The Free Market will provide it's own protections without "Government Overreach" - give or take a Century.

Vyan

Update: Thanks for the Recs, much appreciated. Let me just address some of the discussion going on below:

Freedom of speech and freedom of opinion in the context of Stossel's statements doesn't completely apply.  Stossel was not saying business owners have a right to their opinions on race, he was saying they have a right to excersize their opinions in how they treat the public.  Doing so as things stand right now is a CRIME, and for good reason.  Stossel feels that Racist Business Practices should be decriminalized, although he doesn't "endorse" these policies - he has none-the-less advocated and rationalized their legitimacy as "valid".

That brings into question whether Stossel has a right to rationalize a crime?  Even if you aren't a pedophile, do you have to right to rationalize and justify the act of pedophilia?  Is that really free speech?  Under the Brandenburg standard as I understand it, it probably is only because Stossel says "you shouldn't do it".  What he seems to fail to understand is that this is a crime because some ones elses freedoms and rights have been violated by this action.

Slavery was that kind of violation. So were the "Black Codes" which were instituted after the Civil War in violation of the 14th Amendment.  So were "Separate but (Un)Equal" laws implemented after Plessy V Furgeson.  Again, Stossel fails to realize that these weren't put in place simply because of the Racism and Animus of Whites during those periods, these were put in place to Game the Market to the financial favor those who were already in (relative) power and discourage competition by others. "Racism" in America has always been nothing more than an excuse, a way to rationalize and justify the economic RAPE of these peoples.  The Markets have tolerated this type of thing for as long as markets have existed going back centuries, they don't naturally seek social equilibrium, they benefit best from social and economic imbalance. Markets don't do this unless they are MADE to shift toward fairness, equity and balance.

As some have pointed out the Bagger's don't think there's a "Right to Healthcare", but somehow there's a "Right to Racism?"  They argue for "personal responsibility" but think it's unconstitutional for the government to request they actually take personal responsibility by purchasing their own health insurance rather than let all the rest of us pick up the tab? It's a pathological dysfunction.

Even the view that Racists views are simply a "matter of opinion" is suspect, because that opinion is inherently flawed.  Racism and Bigotry are the prejudging of a person with out bothering to gather all the relevant facts individually. it's a short-cut. It's LAZINESS.  It's the conflation that if some Black people have been arrested in high numbers - they must be more generally "criminal".  That if they're unemployed they must be "Lazy". That since some women can't run as fast as some men, that they're generally "weaker", or that gay people are generally more promiscuous and predatory in their sexual appetites than straights.  It's acting as an armchair statistician without bothering to do any of the actual math. Certainly any particularly individual might fit into such a stereotypical view, they might "fit the profile", but the fact is that most people won't.  Most young black men, (around 70%) have NEVER been inside a jail, and never will be.  Lots of women, who keep in shape, can out run and out jump a man who doesn't.

Bigotry is coming to a conclusion without having all the facts about the individual standing in front of you, and then arrogantly clinging onto that false impression in ignorance and denial of the factual reality.  Essentially, it's being a willfully ignorant asshole.  

Kinda sounds a lot most Tea Baggers in general doesn't it?

Again, I still don't think that's a "right" because although people may have a right to their opinion, but they aren't "entitled" to disregard facts out of convenience or sloppiness - nobody is "entitled to HATE" - it should be their responsibility to seek out the truth, not capitulate to lies and hatred.

Originally posted to Vyan on Sat May 22, 2010 at 06:59 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (175+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, Chi, Rita in DC, AaronInSanDiego, mem from somerville, Shockwave, wu ming, Heimyankel, frsbdg, sardonyx, concernedamerican, missLotus, DaleA, ask, PBnJ, Glic, dchill, splashy, Cedwyn, antirove, high uintas, psnyder, pat bunny, brainwave, yet another liberal, DMiller, Julie Gulden, rapala, marina, ManOnTheBench, Heiuan, mjd in florida, PBen, panicbean, basquebob, Brooke In Seattle, Dobber, eru, majcmb1, where4art, wiscmass, sodalis, Nowhere Man, third Party please, Shirl In Idaho, esquimaux, Clytemnestra, smokeymonkey, buckstop, luckydog, sailmaker, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, philipmerrill, Crashing Vor, bleeding heart, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, blueoregon, mjminPA, Hedwig, Grannus, pale cold, One Pissed Off Liberal, lightfoot, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, possum, karmsy, davehouck, jayden, mcgee85, vbdietz, Moderation, pioneer111, Rumarhazzit, willb48, rogerdaddy, mconvente, condorcet, mamamedusa, Mr Stagger Lee, Involuntary Exile, elwior, binkaroni, beltane, Cassandra Waites, tampamatt, nzanne, Jodster, Zulia, A Man Called Gloom, palantir, dmhlt 66, David Futurama, statsone, LaFeminista, satanicpanic, tbird, snackdoodle, greengemini, velvet blasphemy, Fixed Point Theorem, mississippi boatrat, Daily Activist, zizi, MKSinSA, ZilV, aj2k, Hot2na, sanglug, Deoliver47, XNeeOhCon, Little Flower, ArthurPoet, mahakali overdrive, Livvy5, Adept2u, LookingUp, marabout40, amk for obama, KentuckyKat, leftist vegetarian patriot, second alto, sfkat, elginblt, dlemex, Oh Mary Oh, ssldenver, no way lack of brain, Colorado is the Shiznit, mama jo, Lost Left Coaster, rationalcauses, Dixiedemocrat, BlueJessamine, coachjdc, soothsayer99, KelleyRN2, Haf2Read, marleycat, Shes a Riot, Angela Quattrano, BarackStarObama, IT Professional, tardis10, Vtdblue, mali muso, BitchesAtWork, stevie avebury, lincoln deschain, SocialPunk, SoCalSal, canadian gal, Chitown Kev, Dom9000, TX Dem 50, lightshine, brainyblond, yawnimawke, toeknee1980, chilonnyc, Flying Goat, OHknighty, oblios arrow, Aji, We Won, ahumbleopinion, toilpress, J Brunner Fan, AnnieR, Joieau, draa, swampyankee, IProfess
    •  Just to clarify, bigots have a right to their (41+ / 0-)

      bigoted opinions, and racists have a right to their racist opinions. We do not police thought nor censor speech in this country except under limited extreme conditions.

      On the other hand, bigotry and racism translated into ACTIONS that have consequences for others is prohibited under our laws.

      We must be extremely careful, particularly after 8 years of intolerance for dissent and diverse opinions, and particularly these days, not to throw out the sacred democratic baby of free speech with the dirty bathwater of discrimination and injustice.

      We must not only tolerate opinions we don't like, we must actively support their right to be heard.

      With equal vigor, we must oppose the physical actions of one human that harm another, including harm by inhibiting their freedom.

      Racism, is, in fact, a protected opinion. Racist actions are not.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:51:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, cut the crap. Nobody is throwing out (17+ / 0-)

        freedom of speech, they are merely exercising it. When creeps like Rand and Stossel speak their hatred I have a right to tell them to go straight to hell, and I have the right to express myself in colorful language if I choose. They are evil. They are dangerous. And they will take my liberties if I let them. So don't you give away my liberties by pretending to be a reasoned, wise person. A truly reasonable wise person will shout them down, will call them what they are, evil hateful racists.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:05:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your anger is misplaced, and your insults (19+ / 0-)

          inappropriate.

          I suggest you reread my actual comment - not the comment you apparently fantasized I made, either based on my username or some inability to contemplate a more complex reality than black or white (metaphor intended).

          Then, I look forward to your thoughtful, substantive response to my actual comment.

          Alternatively, you could simply choose not to respond at all.

          Responding as you have, with utterly no relevance to my actual comment, and in a gratuitously hostile, hateful way, does not dignify this conversation, nor does it emphasize the difference between thoughtful, rational progressives, and irrational, hate-driven, narrow-minded people like Rand Paul and John Stossel.

          If you have an actual debate with an actual point I made, not some mythical straw man you erected, I welcome a respectful discussion about it.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:12:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I, too, will probably risk being... (9+ / 0-)

            ...ridiculed for my lack of understanding of your post, but I just want to say that allowing someone freedom of speech does not mean I must agree with everything they say, or must not loudly voice my disagreement.

            Now, go ahead, and eloquently tell me why I am wrong.

            I just think it is interesting to watch the GOP/Conservative/Libertarian reaction to Rand Paul's - and soon John Stossel's - belief that privately owned businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

            Watching the flies come out of the woodwork, now that they believe there is open support for their bigoted ideas is quite something.

            And no, random, I am not including you on that list.

            •  Racism is the practice of discrimination (8+ / 0-)

              based on race. It is illegal.

              Those who speak out in favor of discrimination based on race as Stossel and Rand did, are encouraging others to commit a crime. They do not have a "right" to do this.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

              by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:28:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You keep saying that. (10+ / 0-)

                And you keep being wrong.

                Racism is simply not the practice of discrimination based on race. That's just not what it means.

                Racism is a set of attitudes and ideas. Having those attitudes and ideas is a fundamental right of a free citizen. People who have those attitudes and ideas do things based on them. One of the things that they do is discriminating by race. This is called "discrimination". If they are discriminating in the service of customers of a public business, this is called "discrimination in public accommodations", and is illegal.

                Racism is a fundamental liberty.

                Discrimination in public accommodations is not.

                Here endeth the lesson.

                --Shannon

                "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                by Leftie Gunner on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:46:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, the law says otherwise (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                debedb, Mudderway, johnva

                And logically, your position is absurd. The only way to get laws changed is to advocate for things that are currently illegal. Using your logic, it would have been illegal for civil rights advocates to support the Civil Rights Act!

                And your lack of support for freedom of speech - including repugnant speech - is both alarming, and suggests an urgent need to review the history of the struggle to protect it in America.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:53:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  it is not absurd. There a lawful procedures for (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shirl In Idaho

                  changing laws. Happens all the time. But encouraging others to commit a crime, no matter your goal, is itself a crime. You can commit a crime and maybe you will be vindicated ultimately. But until that vindication comes you can be subjected to the penalties your crime demands.

                  Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                  by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:14:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You are simply incorrect, and have no evidence (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    debedb, Mudderway, johnva

                    to support your contention.

                    I will advocate a crime right here, right now:

                    I think gay people in love should get married.

                    Please, hestal, notify the FBI.

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:17:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Racism: hatred or intolerance of another race (3+ / 0-)

                    Source: dictionary.com.

                    Notice no mention of discrimination.  Discrimination based on race does not encompass everything racist.

                    •  Discriminating on the basis of race without hate (0+ / 0-)

                      I've always wanted to use this information (more on the source of it later), and now I can in an example of discrimination on the basis of race without hatred or intolerance.

                      Discrimination against black people not based on race: denying black people primary malaria prophylaxis when they travel to areas of malaria infestation and aren't already immune to malaria.

                      Primary malaria prophylaxis is accomplished by a daily dose (starting one day before departure and ending 7 days after returning) of primaquine, which causes hemolytic anemia in people of African or Mediterranean descent.  Hemolytic anemia is a condition which is certainly painful and possibly fatal.  It is the recommended drug by the CDC for malaria prophylaxis when traveling to Argentina.

                      So doctors would be discriminating against black people on the basis of race, but not doing so on the basis of hatred or intolerance.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

                      I always knew watching "M*A*S*H" would have a future benefit: primaquine causing hemolytic anemia was a plot point in M*A*S*H Season 9, episode 16: "The Red/White Blues" (Wikipedia, http://tinyurl.com/...

              •  Some discrimination is unlawful, not racism (4+ / 0-)

                Practices can be racially discriminatory even when the practitioners/proponents are not racists.

                •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                  Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                  by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:14:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's called disparate impact (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    XNeeOhCon, Chitown Kev

                    If a practice disparately impacts members of protected it is often unlawful.

                    A practice that is non-racist on its face that disparately impacts protected classes is unlawful discrimination.

                    E.g., facially race neutral policies, such as, requiring "good credit," or requiring criminal background checks can be put in place by people and organizations that are not racist. Yet, the practice may be determined to be unlawful discrimination if it turns out that a protected class suffers disproportionate negative impact. (Often only discoverable after several years with the use of statistical methods.)

                    •  But the people who put the policies in (0+ / 0-)

                      place knew what they were doing, otherwise why were the policies necessary.

                      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                      by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:59:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No in some cases (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        hestal

                        the disparate impact is not apparent until after the fact.

                        E.g., It is not a per se racist for an employer to want to disqualify potential employees having misdemeanor convictions. Barring employees who have misdemeanor convictions may seem like a perfectly reasonable policy. However, since African-Americans have a higher proportion of misdemeanor convictions than whites - the practice is generally considered unlawful.

                        Other similar examples include, educational requirements, screening exams, and so on.

                        •  That is not what I said. The law may not be (0+ / 0-)

                          able to demonstrate the disparate impact until time passes and data reveals the truth. But I am saying that the people who put those policies in place knew what the effects would be.

                          Don't underestimate the deviousness of evil.

                          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                          by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:31:00 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  what? (7+ / 0-)

                of course they have a right to do that. You have a right to espouse racist, sexist or homophobic beliefs just like others have the right to verbally attack those horrible beliefs.

                Freedom of speech is broad and for a reason.

                They absolutely do have a right but what they don't have a right to do is implement those thoughts and opinions into actions when I as a Black man want to find a motel to sleep in, a restaurant to eat in, a pool to swim in, or a job to apply for.

                Usurping the Constitution for noble reasons is no better than doing it for selfish ones.

                •  You cannot encourage other to commit a crime. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lightshine

                  Racism is the practice of discrimination based on race. When Rand and Stossel encourate private businessses to defy the law and to start turning away blacks, then they are committing a crime.

                  Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                  by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:15:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Shifting the goalposts, now, are we? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lone1c, johnva

                    Simpler to just admit you are wrong, apologize for your outrageous insults, and move on.

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:18:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  first of all (5+ / 0-)

                    one can privately practice discrimination based on race til the cows come home.

                    Second, both have advocated repealing a law, neither have said business should ignore the law, can you find one word that says that? No.

                    Third, EVEN if they were, it STILL wouldn't be a crime in the manner in which they are doing it.

                    But heck, what do I know, I'm just a criminal law attorney who's done defense my whole career.

                  •  No. Racism is the belief that races are not equal (0+ / 0-)

                    You can be a racist and not practice discriminatory actions, because you're not in a position to do so.

                    If you believe that "brown people" are responsible for all of America's ills today, then you are a racist, whether or not you are actually denying someone the right to shop in your store or worship at your church.

                    What you believe is your right under the law; the law does not criminalize privately-held beliefs. You can even go out to a street corner and say to passers-by "I don't believe minorities should be able to vote," and, while reprehensible, that's not against the law. You can be shouted down for it, but you won't go to jail. On the other hand, if you stand outside the polling station and block minorities from entering, then you're guilty of a crime.

              •  OK, if someone calls me a "nigger" (8+ / 0-)

                they are being racist.

                That's in and of itself not illegal.

                If someone will not invite me into their home because I'm black or refuses to have sex with me solely on that basis, that's racism but it's not illegal.

                If a waiter in a resturant refuses to serve me and/or call me a "nigger" then that's racism. And in that context, it's illegal.

              •  Very wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RandomActsOfReason, Chitown Kev

                Racism is the practice of discrimination based on race. It is illegal.

                Discrimination is the practice of racism. It's racism in action. Racism is a thought/belief system. Not illegal.

                It's despicable, reprehensible, poisonous and pathological -- but it's not illegal.

                It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

                by teachme2night on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:27:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Where, exactly, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RandomActsOfReason

                do they "encourage others to commit a crime?"

                I don't see them telling business owners that they should be barring blacks from their lunch counters in defiance of the law. Anywhere. In fact, they are quite careful not to say anything of the sort.

                What I do see is them expressing a disagreement with settled law, something they are within their rights to do. It's a disgusting stance, and probably a foolish one for a Senatorial candidate, but hardly illegal.

                Now for the hard part...

                by justme on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:46:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  We are in violent agreement (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              justme, dchill, Mudderway, Prophet Soul, johnva

              I just want to say that allowing someone freedom of speech does not mean I must agree with everything they say, or must not loudly voice my disagreement.

              Since nothing in my comment suggested otherwise, it is not clear why you present this as a straw men that you expect me to find wrong.

              If you could clarify what you found unclear in my comment, I will clarify it. Perhaps that would be more productive than inventing things I did not say and fighting those ghosts.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:51:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I only think your original reply was pedantic (4+ / 0-)

                but correct - it's clear that Stossel isn't talking about "free speech" or the right to have a repugnant opinion, he's talking about action, about a company establishing a policy of bigotry.  He thinks it should be legal, and we should just "trust" that fair minded clients and customers will either force that company to change the policy, or else go out of business.

                But here's the thing, tons of companies and lenders and apartment owners already do have those policies - they just LIE ABOUT IT and pretend otherwise, as a result the Market Does nothing.  Part of what the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ used to have were "Civil Rights Testers" - people with identical resumes and records who would go around and check to see if they would be denied service simply because they happen to be black, gay, or asian while their white, straight, male counterparts were not.  The market doesn't provide for this, government does.

                Vyan

                •  I don't disagree with anything you've said (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mudderway, johnva

                  Nor does my initial comment.

                  In fact, it addresses another issue entirely - a concern that is completely vindicated by the crusade here by hestal to convince us that speech - or even a thought or belief - is a crime in America.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:20:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think that your "concern" is at all... (0+ / 0-)

                    ..."vindicated". It seems more that you have over-reacted to a couple of comments and immediately mischaracterized other folks' positions with high-handed pseudo-wisdom.

                    I mean, really...where is this "crusade" that you allege? Perhaps the "crime" that you are reacting to is simply that other folks find your points "pedantic", as mentioned above.

                    •  I "over-reacted" and "mischaracterized?" (0+ / 0-)

                      I made a completely calm and rational opening comment. This was the complete content of the first response:

                      Oh, cut the crap. Nobody is throwing out freedom of speech, they are merely exercising it. When creeps like Rand and Stossel speak their hatred I have a right to tell them to go straight to hell, and I have the right to express myself in colorful language if I choose. They are evil. They are dangerous. And they will take my liberties if I let them. So don't you give away my liberties by pretending to be a reasoned, wise person. A truly reasonable wise person will shout them down, will call them what they are, evil hateful racists.

                      I responded with a calm, rational response:

                      Your anger is misplaced, and your insults inappropriate.

                      I suggest you reread my actual comment - not the comment you apparently fantasized I made, either based on my username or some inability to contemplate a more complex reality than black or white (metaphor intended).

                      Then, I look forward to your thoughtful, substantive response to my actual comment.

                      Alternatively, you could simply choose not to respond at all.

                      Responding as you have, with utterly no relevance to my actual comment, and in a gratuitously hostile, hateful way, does not dignify this conversation, nor does it emphasize the difference between thoughtful, rational progressives, and irrational, hate-driven, narrow-minded people like Rand Paul and John Stossel.

                      If you have an actual debate with an actual point I made, not some mythical straw man you erected, I welcome a respectful discussion about it.

                      This was the next response:

                      My anger is not misplaced. You need to get some courage and get on the right side of this question. People who encourage accommodation with racista are givig aid and comfort to the enemy.

                      In contrast, the diarist politely suggested disagreement with me, and asked for clarification, which he got, and we resolved things in a single exchange.

                      Would you care to reconsider and withdraw your accusation that I "over-reacted" and "mischaracterized"?

                      I haven't even gotten to the part where hestal started screaming that I was a racist and a racist accommodator, that I supported Stossel and Paul and that I was defending their argument - to which, despite repeated, initially restrained, refutations on my part, he or she proceeded to escalate the rhetoric, until, unbelievably, posting a comment saying it was all make believe, to give us "white people" a taste of what it was like to be black in America.

                      Moreover, to the continued insistence that the US Constitution does not protect racist speech, I and many others here attempted to correct hestal's misperceptions, which resulted in only more insults and more strident rhetoric.

                      As I said, care to reconsider and withdraw your accusation?

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:36:51 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your aggression is unappreciated. (0+ / 0-)

                        And how persistent with the mischaracterizations.

                        Your pretense at civil discourse apparently only cloaks a flatulent bullying attitude.

                        Yawn.

                        •  Hm. Apparently, you aren't engaging in good faith (0+ / 0-)

                          and have no intention of actually considering the accuracy of honesty of your ad hominem attacks.

                          There is no aggression in my response to you. I quoted actual comments and response - in full, without edited. You completely ignore the empirical evidence I present, and continue to insist that, no, the Sun revolves around the Earth, because that is what you want to believe.

                          How is it not bullying when you claim I overreacted and mischaracterized from the start, but it is bullying when I factually cut and paste the actual initial exchanges that demonstrate that, on the contrary, it was the opposite?

                          I am, in fact, attempting to engage in civil discourse, posting substance and providing evidence to support my arguments, while you simply throw feces with no apparent reason, justification or even the pretense of a rationale.

                          I am not sure why you are behaving in this manner, but it is clear you had no intention from the start to do anything but spew insults and expect them to be accepted unchallenged.

                          The aggression here is plain for any reader to see, and it is entirely on your side. You initiated this insulting exchange, and you are the one refusing to discuss substance.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:22:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You're still blowing hot air... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...more flatulence. Stinks.

                            Sun, Earth? Really?

                            Posturing aside, you make a poor victim. Pompous bullies with little credibility usually do make poor victims.

                            Have a nice weekend.

                          •  In other words, you got nothing (0+ / 0-)

                            no substance to back up your bluster.

                            No evidence to support your insults.

                            No content whatsoever that contributes to the conversation.

                            You preoccupation with nebulous gases is quite ironic.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:31:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Rand, I gave you what you asked for... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...and I've made the point - generously - with your willing tho' unwitting assistance. Your insistence on projection and false victimization just keeps making you look bad. Way I see it.

                            You'd probably be better off if you'd just:
                            a. resist the impulse to click "reply to this"
                            b. go back and read this exchange
                            c. see if there's something you can learn from your inadequacies as demonstrated here.

                            'Course, you could also take any other path as you see fit.

                            Later, Rand.

                •  Exactly--that business (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vyan

                  will do what it wants to do, regardless of what is right or wrong, as judged by others.

                  IT--the business, based on its bottom line--will judge what is best for IT, and it says no one else can make that judgement. And you can damn well betcha that if IT can make a buck turning away Teh Browns, IT will! It's that simple.

                  fair minded clients and customers will either force that company to change the policy, or else go out of business

                  Believing in that to the point of blind trust is absurd. It's why there are laws to begin with, because it wasn't happening.

                  The American Television and Newspaper Mainstream Media = Private, For Profit Corporate Information Service Monopoly

                  by o the umanity on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:29:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think anyone has said that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RandomActsOfReason

              that allowing someone freedom of speech does not mean I must agree with everything they say, or must not loudly voice my disagreement.

              It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

              by teachme2night on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  OK, now THIS (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RandomActsOfReason

              allowing someone freedom of speech does not mean I must agree with everything they say, or must not loudly voice my disagreement.

              Wholeheartedly agree with this.

              You can say and think what you want but (if this a conversation or a debate in the public square) I have that same freedom of speech and the moral duty to respond.

          •  No, they're really not (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soothsayer99

            sorry.

            The American Television and Newspaper Mainstream Media = Private, For Profit Corporate Information Service Monopoly

            by o the umanity on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:21:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  My anger is not misplaced. You need to get some (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soothsayer99, lightshine

            courage and get on the right side of this question. People who encourage accommodation with racista are givig aid and comfort to the enemy.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

            by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:26:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excuse me (7+ / 0-)

              We all harbor evil thoughts about something, even if it's only that we hate our jobs. What are you going to do about it? You can try to convince someone to think otherwise, but there's no guarantee since we don't do mind control, only persuasion and argument.

              RAOR is not encouraging accommodation with racists nor giving 'aid and comfort to the enemy', but simply stating facts. Equating him/her with treason is over the line and unproductive.

              •  Think whatever you want. But don't give voice (0+ / 0-)

                to thoughts if your words will encourage others to commit a crime. That is not protected speech.

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:36:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. (6+ / 0-)

                  So you're saying that before anyone expresses an opinion, they need to take into consideration every possible interpretation? That strikes kind of an Orwellian chord with me.

                •  Actually, it is protected speech (9+ / 0-)

                  Your position is absurd. Advocates of legalizing Marijuana are supporting something that is currently illegal. Smoking Marijuana is a crime in the US. Are you arguing that advocating legalization of - or even outright smoking of - marijuana is "not protected speech"?

                  Your false interpretation is authoritarian, McCarthyesque and, frankly, frightening to hear in an American "progressive" forum.

                  The fact that you are still here, without HRs, spouting this shit is proof that offensive speech - including the advocacy of a crime, which censoring offensive speech would be - is allowed not only in America, but even on Daily Kos.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:00:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  BTW, if it were not, I would fight such a law (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rick Aucoin, Mudderway, johnva

                    as others have done in the past, because they recognize that the only way to ensure freedom from censorship is to protect the right of people to say things we don't want to hear.

                    You are so incredibly wrong that it is genuinely difficult to know if you are simply grossly misinformed, or deliberately trolling - particularly when you go completely off the edge by calling me a 'racist accommodator'. You're like the mirror image of Rand Paul, only less diplomatic.

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:04:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  People have defined unjust laws, but when they (0+ / 0-)

                      do they run the risk of suffering the penalties of the law. What you are advocating is seletive disregard of the law. Shame on you.

                      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                      by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:17:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  They are advocating changing the law within, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lightshine

                    presumably, the law. Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time. But if they smoke marijuana and if they encourage others to smoke marijuana then they must expect to pay the price.

                    MLK and his brave followers broke laws and expected to pay the price. They were arrested, booked, etc. and some cases they were harmed. But they law, bad as it was, acted because they defined it. You can break the law, but you can't expect to be free from paying the price.

                    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                    by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:07:43 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is not illegal to advocate smoking hash (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rick Aucoin, Mudderway, johnva

                      you must be smoking it to think it is.

                      It was not illegal for MLK to advocate changing the Constitution - even during our American apartheid era, that was protected speech.

                      You are simply, grossly wrong - and, doubly wrong for your outrageous insult of calling me a racist accommodator.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:15:02 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  MLK broke other laws about assembly (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lightshine

                        marching sitting in segregated facilities and the like in the tyranno-South and he and his followers were arrested and often mistreated for these violations. They knew what they were doing, and over time they won. But that is a good example because the laws were unjust.

                        But people, like you apparently, who think it is okay to encourage racism, to discriminate against blacks because they are black, is a good thing or a protected thing are wrong. MLK knew that he was breaking the law and he was man enough to take the risk. But you are saying that the people who promote racism are immune from the consequences of their actions. What a silly concept.

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:20:51 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You need to stop this crap, now (6+ / 0-)

                          But people, like you apparently, who think it is okay to encourage racism, to discriminate against blacks because they are black, is a good thing or a protected thing are wrong.

                          Please quote where I ever - never mind in  this diary only, said, suggested or even obliquely implied that "it is okay to encourage racism, to discriminate against blacks because they are black, it is a good thing".

                          It is, in fact, a protected thing to express racist thoughts.

                          Your failure to distinguish between the freedom to think and speak, and the freedom to act, betrays such a profound ignorance of US law that I don't know what to say or where to start.

                          Your failure to distinguish between support for the right to free speech, and support for the contents of particular speech, is perhaps even more disturbing.

                          Just because I would defend to the death your right to persist in your insulting, outrageously offensive speech toward me, does not for a moment mean I agree with it.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's take this slowly. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lightshine

                            When you say that people who encourage racism are exercising protected speech then you are saying that it is okay for them to do it. I am not accusing you personally of being a racist, I don't know, but you may be, but I am not accusing you of it. But you are saying that racists who encourage racism are protected then you are also saying that it is okay for them to say it. I am saying that it is not okay. It ain't hard to understand.

                            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                            by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:28:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  An Important Distinction (5+ / 0-)

                            Morally, I don't think many people here would say it's "okay" to encourage racism or say racist things. Legally, on the other hand, it is okay. Big, big difference.

                          •  Wrong on several counts, dishonest on others (5+ / 0-)

                            When you say that people who encourage racism are exercising protected speech then you are saying that it is okay for them to do it.

                            you are saying that racists who encourage racism are protected then you are also saying that it is okay for them to say it.

                            No. Not "okay" in the sense of agreeing with it, but permitted by the 1st Amendment. Just as American Nazis are free to publish and speak their filth, and even to march through our cities unharmed, all protected by the full force of the US Constitution. Just as those who oppose a woman' right to choose are free to call abortion "murder" and to try to change the law.

                            I am not accusing you personally of being a racist, I don't know, but you may be, but I am not accusing you of it.

                            Lie. You wrote,

                            You need to get some courage and get on the right side of this question. People who encourage accommodation with racista are givig aid and comfort to the enemy.

                            You also wrote,

                            people, like you apparently, who think it is okay to encourage racism, to discriminate against blacks because they are black, is a good thing

                            Just a moment ago, you followed that up with,

                            If the shoe fits, then wear it.

                            You need to unconditionally apologize. Shame on you. Compounding outrageous insult with lies and denial.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:37:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He should apologize, he doesn't need to. (4+ / 0-)

                            That is basically what this whole subthread is also about, his right not to apologize and continue calling you a racist etc. But I know that you know that and i'm just being anoyingly pedantic right now.

                            "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn -8.62/-8.46

                            by Mudderway on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:16:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, that is not the argument at all (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mudderway

                            I defend his RIGHT to be hateful, but that does not mean he should not apologize for it.

                            The right to free speech does not abrogate responsibility for reprehensible speech. There is a critical distinction between what is allowed, and what is socially acceptable.

                            Calling people "racists" and "racist accommodators" for supporting the 1st Amendment is a shameful and reprehensible act, and the fact that is it not "illegal" does not mean it is socially okay.

                            Similarly, the fact the hestal has the RIGHT to make false statements about US law - just as Stossel and Paul have that right - does not mean that hestal should not admit error.

                            I am surprised by how much confusion there seems to be between legal rights and social convention.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:08:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with you. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RandomActsOfReason

                            My only point was that I didn't like your use of the word need, because that implies (although I am sure that is not how you meant it) the use of force, or harsh penalties if he didn't comply. That is why I said he SHOULD apologize or (of course) live with the social consequences if he doesn't which would be a significant lowering of his image on this site, because he is obiously acting stupid. I also share your surprise at the trouble people have seeing the difference between convention ans legal rights. My first post was obviously worded badly if it led you to believe me to be among those people. Like I said I only took issue with the word NEED, because to me it implies that he MUST dio something, but my english is also very rusty so I might just be projecting some german in the weight of those words(if that makes any sense at all.) Like I said I was just being annoyingly pedantic. I hope to have cleared up some of the misunderstanding, although I doubt it, because all the beer I just drank watching the big football game Munich vs Milan surely isn't helping me communicate more clearly.
                            Long story short I agree with pretty much all the points you have made in this diary, hence all my recs along the way, I just don't like the word need.

                            "We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn -8.62/-8.46

                            by Mudderway on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:00:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  heh (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mudderway

                            I certainly did not intend any use of force - in fact, I characterized the comment of one person here, who said, in essence, that the correct response to unpleasant speech is "an elbow in the face", that his comment was McCarthyesque.

                            Nor did I have any intention to impune your English or your understanding, both of which appear to me to be impeccable.

                            Let's agree that he/she SHOULD apologize - but, as we both know, will not.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:55:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hestal, I'm black and yes (7+ / 0-)

                            I would have to say that it is protected speech.

                            I'm also gay and, yes, I think that vile anti-gay speech is protected speech.

                            I will defend my homophobic cousin's freedom of speech if he were to say it in his home or at family gaterings. In fact, he has.

                            And, in fact, since he lives in a state that has no LGBT protections on the books, he could say it in the office as well (but he couldn't do that in my state).

                    •  they were WRONGFULLY arrested (0+ / 0-)

                      do you not see that the absurdity of your argument has not forced you into a position where you've legitimized the arrest of Dr. King?

                      •  They were rightly arrested under an unjust, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lightshine

                        unconstitutional law. MLK knew that the way to get the law changed was to dramatize the injustice of the law and the best way to do that was to defy the law and force the public officials to react. It worked, but it would not have worked if there had been no television. TV changed a lot of things in the South. It showed the reactions of the racists in Arkansas when IKE sent in the troops.

                        So you are wrong. They were rightly accused and rightly arrested under an unjust, unconstitutional law.

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:25:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  If you are referring to incitement to violence (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RandomActsOfReason

                  I agree. But supporting freedom of speech is not the same as supporting racism, even though it may defend a racist's right to free speech the same as anyone else's.

                  •  A racist does not have the right to promote (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soothsayer99, lightshine

                    racism. Racism is the practice of discrimination based on race. That is illegal. To encourage others, such as private businesses, to start practicing such discrimination is encouraging them to commit a crime, which is itself a crime.

                    You can think anything you want, but you can't say anything you want. There are limits.

                    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                    by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:09:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm sorry, you're mistaken (4+ / 0-)

                      Read Brandenburg v. Ohio.
                      Speech is limited only when it presents imminent danger, which refers to immediate actions.

                      Persuading someone into discriminating against others is not illegal. A rabble rouser may be arrested for disturbing the peace, trespassing, harassment, etc., but otherwise, no.
                      The action of discriminating in providing services or products is illegal.

                  •  Thanks marina, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vyan, marina, soothsayer99

                    You are the only one out of many who granted me the same courtesy that Rand and Stossel are granted by those who interview them on national TV.

                    You are correct of course. I am not the idiot that my comments would seem to indicate.

                    I was irritated by the blandness with which people seem to accept the remarks of these two racists, and I wanted to see if they would grant me the same courtesy when I challenged them personally. They didn't. And this is typical of white people when they think about the way certain hated groups are treated. Even well-meaning white people fail to grasp the threat that these two men present. I didn't for a very long time, but unfortunately I finally got it.

                    So when I personally challenged the commenters who have come after me they reacted with force, but they didn't react with similar force in reaction to Rand and Stossel.

                    It is a purely white condition and the clearest illustration is when white people defend the racists of the antebellum south. They say that we shouldn't criticize those people because times were different then, and slavery was an accepted part of life in those days. But of course that is simply not true.

                    In 1787, when the Constitution was drafted most of the people in the North knew that slavery was wrong, but they had no idea what to do about it. Some of the people in the South knew that slavery was wrong. And here is the trick. The people in the preceding sentences were all white. When we talk about those old days and talk about what people believed then we are talking only about whites. To us today, looking back, blacks still don't matter. But the truth is that all the blacks knew that slavery was wrong. They were aware of that horrible fact every waking minute. But whites today still don't get it. And they don't get it about Rand and Stossel. They should be fanning out all across the country in the streets shouting down this abomination. But it is easier to jump on guys like me who give personal offense.

                    The outcry against this racist speech is too muted, and therefore it gives support.

                    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                    by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:29:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think you will find more resistance now (0+ / 0-)

                      to the racism that is no longer deniable (as if it ever was) within the tea parties and elsewhere. Their cover of states' rights etc. has been exposed for what it really is. We are not going to turn the clock back to the times when racist laws were enabled and obeyed. We cannot and will not let that happen. As the resistance to the Arizona law grows, so will the resistance to Paul's kind of thinking.

                      I'm a white woman, with family who are of mixed race. I think most of the people here on this site are not racist, nor do they approve of racism or racist speech. But it's a tough site, and different from the MSM--people are called out here all the time, unlike the MSM treatment of  Stossel and Paul. So we react to any threat against free speech, real or perceived, as a threat to our own dissent. Point taken, however, and considered. Thanks for your comment.

                      •  I hope you are right about "more resistance" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        marina

                        but I fear you are wrong.

                        AZ's law is far from dead.

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:49:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Bullshit, cowardly walkback (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lone1c

                      You are correct of course. I am not the idiot that my comments would seem to indicate.

                      I was irritated by the blandness with which people seem to accept the remarks of these two racists, and I wanted to see if they would grant me the same courtesy when I challenged them personally. They didn't. And this is typical of white people when they think about the way certain hated groups are treated

                      Bullshit.

                      1)You made one invalid legal argument, and you were met with respectful corrections by virtually everyone in this diary. You still refuse to admit you were 100% wrong about your statement of what US law permits or does not permit.

                      1. You make reprehensible, outrageous insults to me, gratuitous, unfounded, and unjustified. You were repeatedly asked to justify your comments, and you amplified them instead. You were then strongly asked to stop. No one "forced" anything on you, it is YOU who have been the aggressor here from your very first comment. Incidentally, I didn't know and STILL don't know and don't care what color you are. Nasty people come in all colors of the rainbow, and incorrect statements of fact are made by people of all colors of the rainbow. The fact that you are are now claiming some kind of justification because of whatever you claim the color of your skin is, is even more shameful.

                      You need to own up to the fact that:

                      1. You are 100% wrong about the 1st Amendment and what speech it protects;
                      1. You were utterly wrong and out of line to accuse me of racism and of accommodating racists;
                      1. You are actually exemplifying precisely the kind of a priori prejudice you abhor in Paul and Stossel (although I will note that neither one engaged in calling their host ugly names). At least one commenter here noted that he or she is black, and still disagrees with you entirely.
                      1. You have been dishonest about your behavior, first denying you ever called me racist or a racist accommodater, then reiterating it again, without a single shred of evidence for it.

                      You seem to assume I am white, and therefor, in a racist fashion, attributed to me pejorative, stereotypical characteristics and beliefs based solely on my color, before I even made my first comment. What is worse, you have ignored extensive rebuttal of your false claims.

                      Bottom line - you need to own your words, take responsibility, admit total error, and apologize.

                      Not pretend it was an act all along, and seek cover in being an oppressed minority. That is below shameful.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:46:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  yes it is (4+ / 0-)

                  it is not merely enough that your words will encourage others to commit a crime, you have to incite others to commit a crime.

                  Urging the repeal of a law is not encouraging others to commit a crime.

                  Under your "logic" those advocating right to life and changes in abortion laws are committing a crime because that could cause someone to do something bad.

                  They are committing bad logic, but they are not committing a crime.

              •  No, i love my job...really ...I love to work... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marina

                really. I love makiing money...please give me more to do...thank you master, may I have another? I will have more work to do Monday? Oh thank you, thank you.

                Slow thinkers - keep right

                by Dave the Wave on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Ironic. shouldn't you hold that calling me a (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lone1c, debedb, Mudderway, Prophet Soul

              racist or racist accommodator is prohibited speech and grounds for your banishment.

              I won't appeal to your sense of decency, since, like Joe McCarthy, you apparently have, at long last, no shame.

              The person who recced you likewise has no shame or sense of basic moral decency.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:56:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I like your style because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lightshine

          you don't play their game. Take over the debate, that is the way and you did it well.

          Thank you and I support your approach and think it is the only way to answer the hateful idiots. Here is my screed on the stupid subject.

          I too think enough of the "reasoned" approach. The issue is not free speech it is discrimination and hatred.

          It is white priviledge losing their guaranteed seat at the head of the table, for no reason except of the color of their skin.

          I will not waste my time listening to someone debate if the world is flat or if the holocaust happened.

          Nor will I give credence to anyone who claims the federal government should not intervene when murder, discrimination and civil rights are denied.

          It is not open for debate. Private enterprise does not have the right to deny a person's civil rights, and a corporation does not have the right to destroy the environment, period.

          We will stop you, we will oversee your actions and we will enforce that you play by the rules, through government first and any other means necessary, period.

          This faux esoteric argument that private can do what they want does not exist, and I will shut someone down when they make that claim.

          There is no debate and I don't care if you disagree with me, nor will I adjust my actions if accused of denying free speech.

          Some forms of speech are not guaranteed and no, you don't get to use the resources of this nation, profit from these resources, land, mineral, government of persons without having to act in the best interest of the community and society at large.

          Period.

          The earth is not flat, captilalism will destroy itself if not regulated, you cannot discriminate because of the color of one's skin and pumping toxins into our shared planet is not allowed just so you can drive a Rolls Royce.

          Nope, those days are over and if you don't like it tough. Want to stop me, then try. One of us will win, but you will have to go through me and many more first.

          That is my suggestion on how to answer and debate these viciously cruel idiots who think our resources are infinite and never had to suffer one day of hardship due to their priviliges of being born white anglo saxon.

          In the words of the great John Stewart from the Daily Show........"Fuck You".

          My words are, "I have had enough of you".

          I rarely read about solutions.

          by Mean Mr Mustard on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:14:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not illegal to claim the Earth is flat, (6+ / 0-)

            nor is it illegal to claim that one race is inferior to another, even though both statements are empirically false.

            Some forms of speech are not guaranteed

            And you are clearly misinformed about what they are or aren't.

            There is no debate and I don't care if you disagree with me, nor will I adjust my actions if accused of denying free speech.

            Then you are just as dangerous to this republic as anyone else who would seek to deny others their Constitutionally protected rights. You don't get to override the Constitution.

            If you don't like it tough. Want to stop me, then try. One of us will win, but you will have to go through me and many more first.

            You sound exactly like Bull O'Connor.

            We didn't fight one form of oppression just to give in to another form.

            Speech is free in America, and if you try to physically stop people from exercising their right to free speech, you will, and should, face the full power of law enforcement in defense of our Constitution.

            It doesn't matter whether you are advocating equality for all, or supremacy for one race over another.

            It doesn't matter whether you are advocating for same-sex marriage, or calling homosexuality an "abomination".

            It doesn't matter whether you think women should have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, or if you think that they are murdering their "unborn children".

            It doesn't matter whether you are the president of the ACLU, or a white-sheeted member of the KKK.

            Freedom of speech in America is not only our most cherished of all freedoms, it is the most essential of all.

            You are free to express your profoundly unconstitutional comments, you are free to express profoundly illiberal, regressive and undemocratic thoughts, because of that very Constitution.

            There is, in fact, debate, and the Earth is not flat, not because some blustering anonymous commenter on the Internet says so, but because science facilitated debate on just such issues, and because people of conscience stood up to bullies who insisted that "the Earth IS flat, and that is that, no discussion, and if you try to disagree, you'll pay the price", as you say.

            Similarly, discrimination based on race is illegal in America, precisely because people insisted on debate, even though they were opposed by people who wanted to say, "There is no debate and I don't care if you disagree with me, nor will I adjust my actions if accused of denying free speech," and who used threats, intimidation and often resorted to physical violence to prevent debate.

            Civil Rights is the law because our elected officials had a debate about it and then voted it into law.

            And people like me, who support the 1st Amendment and the right to free speech, do not necessarily agree with the speech we defend. We defend the principle itself. I wish you would as well.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:32:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  *applause! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              justme, RandomActsOfReason

              I would rec this 10,000 times if I could.

              I'm a fervent advocate for equal rights for all, be they gay, black, disabled, martian.  

              But I WILL defend, to the very death, the right of the KKK to march in their repulsive parades and hand out their vile literature.

              Because I am a patriotic American.  I believe in our Bill of Rights.  

              RandomActsOfReason, you've stood a good ground here, my hat is off to you for your precise and reasoned reply to all-too-many incendiary replies to your posts and you sir (or ma'am) have my utmost respect.  

              :: Not so hopeful now ::

              by Rick Aucoin on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:15:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Come on. He's not saying that. (0+ / 0-)

          So don't you give away my liberties by pretending to be a reasoned, wise person.

          He's saying people have a right to have whatever sort of fucked-up, wrong-minded, hateful, stupid garbage in their heads that they want. But they DON'T have a right to transform those thoughts into discriminatory, racist actions.

          shout them down... call them what they are, evil hateful racists.

          No one could agree with that more than I. I can get witnesses on that. But you're misunderstanding and consequently misrepresenting what RAoR is saying.

          It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

          by teachme2night on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:18:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  people seem to forget that the ACLU once (11+ / 0-)

        defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie.

        guess that makes the ACLU a racist organization.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:18:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Racism is the practice of discrimination (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, lightshine

        based on race. T

        he practice of discrimination based on race is illegal.

        To publicly encourage others to commit a crime is itself a crime and it is not a right.

        To speak out in favor of discrimination based on race is a crime and it is not a right.

        Racism, when spoken, is not protected speech. It is not a right. It is a crime.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  After reading through this thread, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glic

        I think I agree with your point, but not with your context. I don't see where in Vyan's diary it was suggested that we should censor racist speech. If there was no such suggestion, then it's not surprising that you've been misinterpreted as defending racism.

        Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

        by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:02:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where did I suggest the diary made such a (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, Mudderway

          suggestion?

          The context turns out to be perfectly apt, given the comments of some here who do exactly what I warned about - throwing out the baby of free speech with the bathwater of discriminatory action.

          It is quite surprising that I have been accused to defending racism, since nothing in my comments suggested that at all, and I am clearly defending free speech, a cherished democratic (and, used to be, liberal) principle.

          Don't defend people here who spew outrageous hate speech of the kind they wish to ban, just because of a 'misinterpretation'.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:35:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not defending anyone (0+ / 0-)

            I'm suggesting to you, RandomActsOfReason, that if you want to be understood by other people (for why else do we write?), then you might pay better attention to context than you did here. Since you weren't directly responding to a suggestion by the diarist, you made what was, in effect, a pre-emptive strike. That makes it harder for readers to determine where you're coming from. Hence, contextually, you're liable to be misunderstood.

            For example, you could have started with something a little less abrupt than "just to clarify". E.g., "I hope we agree that racists have a right to racist thoughts, though not racist actions."

            You're right that some people, regardless, sought to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The majority (entirety?) of those people were responding directly under your original comment. Perhaps if you'd set the stage better, you could more effectively have cut these arguments off before they started.

            Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

            by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:35:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There was no "preemptive attack" (0+ / 0-)

              and I was "misunderstood" only by two people - the diarist, and we cleared things up with a single, civilized, comment exchange - and hestal, who insisted I was the anti-christ, and has refused to admit error in his or her insistence that the 1st Amendment does not protect speech in support of racism.

              I am not responsible for the responses of people like hestal, and I cannot control their responses.

              In reflecting upon my initial comment, I find nothing I would do differently. I don't believe in being defensive or self-censoring, just because a few irrational people turn everything into an excuse for a rant.

              There has been very little condemnation of hestal's behavior, and few suggestions that he or she rethink their approach. I appreciate the constructive intent of your comment, but I did nothing wrong here.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:04:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't need to be defensive or self-censoring. (0+ / 0-)

                I wasn't suggesting that you be defensive or self-censoring. I was trying to suggest that you could clarify your intent by clarifying your context. Express a little more clearly how your comment fits with the points that the diarist was making.

                It's up to you, of course, whether or not you take the suggestion.

                Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

                by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:29:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  This all started when you defended the (0+ / 0-)

        right of Rand Paul to speak in favor of racism. So I thought I would challenge your committment to that concept. But you did not like my statements. You called me names, you sarcastically suggested that I not speak out at all, and more... read your comments in the thread.

        You were offended. Imagine what it would have been like if I had advocating discriminating against you because of the color of your eyes in spite of the fact that it was illegal to discriminate in this way. It is different isn't it?

        My experience with racism is that I didn't know it even existed. I grew up in the NE corner of 20,000 sq mi area of Texas in which there were no black people. I never gave racism a thought. But I learned about it in my adulthood in very forceful ways. I learned that white people, like I was, and like many still are, think of discrimination against blacks as some sort of abstract intellectual problem and they engage it that way. It is not real. But when I see Rand and Stossel advocate such discrimination on national television and when I see them treated with some sort of respect and when there are no forceful voices against them from our national leaders, my skin crawls.

        So their talk is not abstract. It is dangerous and it could be the first step leading to a murderous storm. You preached to me about protecting freedom of speech, and I think you are wrong. Speech is protected by the Constitution, but we have to be careful that we don't let this abstract concept endanger innocent people. That should be the first question any of us answers in these circumstances. Is their speech dangerous? I think it is. Can we stop it? Unfortunately not. So the energy you expended on rebutting me in pursuit of an abstraction is wasted. I'm not going to hurt anybody. But the people who listen to Rand and Stossel might. How do you repel and rebut hate speech, for racist speech is hate speech. There is no doubt about it.

        So, instead of quarreling with me, exercise your freedom of speech and raise holy hell about Rand and Stossel. Let the world know that what they are doing is hateful and wrong. Don't defend it. Shout it down like you tried to shout me down.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You called me a racist accommodator (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, birdboy2000

          and a racist myself. You expanded that with repeated ugly, outrageous insults. If you had witnessed someone else engaging in your speech, you would have called for it to be banned.

          You need to apologize.

          You asserted, incorrectly, that it is illegal to advocate racism. You have been told by everyone else here that you are wrong.

          You need to acknowledge your error and admit you were wrong.

          I made a simple comment in this diary, that we must be careful not to throw out the baby of our Constitutionally protected free speech with the filthy bathwater of discrimination (did the "filthy bathwater" not tip you off to my lack of support for their position?).

          Given your response, it is quite clear that my point was needed. Thank you for proving it.

          Now, you need to admit error and apologize for your lies and your insults.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:38:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I made no errors, and I owe no apologies. (0+ / 0-)

            I revealed you for what you are. You defended the right of a racist to deliver hate speech, but you don't grant me the right to disagree with you.

            The difference is that racist discrimination against blacks does not affect you personally, but when I made it personal you went nuts. Shame on you.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

            by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:05:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see what you were trying to do, but IMO (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jodster

              it was a massive FAIL.  You can't walk up to someone on the street, yell insults at them, then use their insuing argument against you as evidence of how misplaced their priorities are and justification for your initial insults.  At the very best you took the argument to an illogical extreme, at worst you are just looking for a fight and don't care about the facts whatsoever.

              "The first reaction of a progressive should be not to look at who is the target of hate, but to reject the hate first." -RandomActsOfReason

              by XNeeOhCon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:35:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are entitled to your opinion. (0+ / 0-)

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:47:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you sure about that? (0+ / 0-)

                  "The first reaction of a progressive should be not to look at who is the target of hate, but to reject the hate first." -RandomActsOfReason

                  by XNeeOhCon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:58:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course. Why do you ask? (0+ / 0-)

                    Your opinion is not far from my own.

                    White people, largely, don't have any idea how discrimination can affect innocent people.

                    Blacks have been on streets many times and have been verbally and physically attacked for simply being black. So your example about walking up to someone on the street is exactly what I am talking about. Then carrying things to nonsensical extremes is exactly what whites have done to blacks for centuries. But whites really don't get it. So you are in agreement with me.

                    Your opinion is largely my opinion and yet you apparently can't see it yourself.

                    Let me repeat. Blacks have suffered verbal assaults for no reason at all, other than the color of their skins. People have walked up to them on the street and assaulted them for centuries.

                    I say , because this never happens to them, whites just don't get it. They swim in an ocean of white privilege, but blacks aren't allowed in the water. Whites don't have any idea. So defending the right of white men to preach racism, discrimination based on race, is not a single isolated entity. It is connected to the end result, it is connected to the fear and alientation it creates in the minds of its targets. Whites, by defending the right of whites to preach racism are again ignoring the feelings of blacks. I tried to show this person what it felt like to be accused of something you think you didn't do, to be yelled out for no apparent reason. And he, and apparently you, just don't get it.

                    That is proven when whites excuse the racism of the antebellum South by saying that things were different then. But things weren't different then. Blacks were yelled at and beaten by whites for no reason at all. And the slaves knew it was wrong. They knew that they had no escape.

                    Racist talk on national television, when it is not forcefully rebutted by our national leaders, is a very bad thing. We all should shouting from the rooftops that Rand and Stossel are unmitigated racists and we, the rest of the white world, oppose what they said and we, the rest of the white world, will not let it ever again come true.

                    But these two racists have raised the possibility. Any thinking person can imagine a series of steps that will let this kind of racist discrimination become the law of the land.

                    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                    by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:26:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hestal, you're confusing the issue (0+ / 0-)

                      As a minority myself, I've heard many hateful things in my time, and have been absolutely outraged. But, there are limits to what the law allows us to do about it. Yes, there are times when words are enough to cause discrimination--that is, when that is enough to create a "hostile environment," but in general, those sorts of restrictions are limited to the workplace, and govern the employer-employee relationship.

                      The law currently does not allow for, in most cases, instances of racially-prejudiced speech to be prosecuted. When the specific intent is to commit an act of violence, or to cause a disruption of public order, that is a very specific exception that has been carved out of the law and criminalized. However, to say that encouraging others to commit racist actions is illegal is clearly not true, especially judging by the fact that nobody--liberal pundits, government officials, or anyone else of note--has called for Paul or Stossel to be placed under arrest.

                      Similarly, expressing a belief that something should be legal when it isn't usually isn't considered a crime in this country. Ordering someone to do something illegal (for instance, to keep their job) is a different matter altogether. People aren't arrested at pro-marijuana demonstrations because they urge the decriminalization of marijuana consumption; they're arrested for breaking existing statutes.

                      This is not Germany; racially prejudicial speech is not criminalized here. Only when it can be connected with a specific action--in the workplace--is it something that can be prosecuted.

                      •  No, you are missing what I am saying. I am not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        lone1c

                        arguing about the law. I was demonstrating that when one is under personal attack the world looks completely different.

                        Racist talk should not ever be considered as purely a question of law. It should be viewed as a two-party transaction. The racist speaker is one party and the seocond party is the member of the targeted race.

                        But usually this two-party transaction includes a white person attacking a black person. That has been true throughout our history.

                        Whites do not understand what it is like to be targeted so they can treat the whole transaction as an intellectual, legal abstraction and this causes them to downplay the effects on the targeted race. That is what happened here. So I made it personal and the reaction was very hot.

                        So white people need to understand that it is not enough to defend the right of the racist to threaten discrimination based on race. White people must also assure the targeted race that the racist is out of line, and other non-racist whites will do everything in their power to assure that racial discrimination will never again become part of our nation.

                        So the diarist was expressing his outrage and that was enough. He was on the right side of the transaction. But then came the "legal scholars," and that was not even a real issue. The issue is what can we whites do to assure the world that there is no possibility of such discrimination ever happening again and that America does not condone what happened and America will make sure that those racist speakers will feel the full wrath of the People.

                        Of course all this needs to be done within the bounds of the law, but it doesn't have to be soft. Those are hard words from Rand and Stossel and they need to feel hard words in return. Lots and lots of them.

                        But it is easier to play scholar and "legal expert." It is a lot more fun, but it is also not enough.

                        But for some on this thread, being "correct" legally is enough. That is all that needs to be done in order for everything to turn our just fine. Nonsense.

                        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                        by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:45:15 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You didn't do a good job of making your point (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          XNeeOhCon

                          As an attempt at creating a teaching moment, your methodology isn't very good. Your demonstration might work well in a classroom, or in a convention, or some other public forum where we can see and hear what is happening. In an online forum where you are raising a rather silly argument and holding to your guns? It's frustrating people, and maybe making them angry or irritated. The visual and oral clues that you're upset or on the attack just aren't there. It's certainly not making them feel afraid for themselves or their safety, and it doesn't lead them to the conclusions you'd like them to draw.

                          You would have been much better off just going ahead and posting this comment as a response to RandomActsOfReason's original comment. It would have been much more thought-provoking, rather than the convoluted sophistry you were trying to use.

                          Also, nobody is disagreeing with you on the points you're trying to make in this post. If anything, note that people were arguing that people have the right to say incredibly stupid and offensive things--which, if you look at it, is actually a support of your main thesis.

                          Nobody's arguing, moreover, that the correct response to an idiot like Paul or Stossel espousing BS is to let it stand without responding and shouting it down. As RAOR points out below, the response is "more, and better speech."

                          •  Well said. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lone1c

                            While I probably agree with many of hestal's positions on this particular subject, my assessment of this argument is that the rhetorical device, ruse, or whatever it could be called, was overstretched, ill conceieved, and poorly executed.  At this point I think it best to bury the hatchet and start over.  Your argument on the intellectual level made just above, hestal, is far more productive and is a much better flag carrier for your perspective on this matter than some muddled trumped up flame war attempting to make the point that we should be loudly shunning people like Stossel and Paul.  Almost every eye that reads this thread is attatched to a brain that agrees with your opinion of those two douchebags.  We don't appreciate the assertion that our knowledge of the constitution makes us ignorant to the concept of white privledge or sympathetic to racists of any stripe.

                            "The first reaction of a progressive should be not to look at who is the target of hate, but to reject the hate first." -RandomActsOfReason

                            by XNeeOhCon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:12:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your smug answer is off base. You seem to (0+ / 0-)

                            think that I wanted to accomplish something other than to remove the smugness from the face of the person with whom I started this whole thing. I was forced to deal with others in the same tone for as long as I felt it useful in order to make my point as forcefully as possible with the original antagonist. I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else of anything, except to make the original antagonist understand that the world contains other points of view and to insist on ignoring the feelings of those other people is not playing well with others. And when I didn't play withe the original antagonist he lost contro. And many others, not knowing what was going on, got caught up in the same anger. They seem to think that they should be comfortable at all times and to hell with anybody else. Well that is not the way the world works. And so the pseudo-intellectual arguments put forward in this long, tiresome thread, remind me of another racist. I am speaking of George Wallace, one of the most reprehensible people to walk on the public stage during my long life. Jerry Falwell was probably more reprehensible. I can think of almost nothing that Wallace and I could agree on, except for one thing. Often in his campaign stops he would launch attacks against all his enemies and the crowd loved it. He would often ridicule academics by referring to them as "pointy-headed intellectuals." As one who has been called the "campus liberal," at a university where Wallace would have felt at home I felt some touch of recognition in Wallace's remarks.

                            One can defend the reprehensible words of racists, but the best defense is not "more, better words," as someone lectured me but the best defense is overwhelming action in defense of those who the racists are attacking.

                            I am old and my memory, especially my short-term memory is going, but I find it hard to remember when white people have marched in favor of civil rights when those rights are threatened by haters. I can recall cases where white people have joined in demonstrations in the company of the hated groups who were the organizers of the event, but I can't recall where white people, whose rights were not threatened by the haters, took it upon themselves to organize a demonstration and carry it out on their own.

                            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                            by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 04:26:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  More false statements. (0+ / 0-)

              you don't grant me the right to disagree with you.

              On the contrary, in more than one comment I stated my determination to defend to the death your right to be as repugnant, dishonest and hateful in your speech as you'd like to be.

              Please quote where I stated that I do not grant you the right to disagree with me.

              I revealed you for what you are.

              And what would that be? Make up your mind. In several comments you called me a racist or racist accommodator, while in another comment you denied ever saying I was a racist or supported racists. So, which is it, and what magic did you perform to "reveal" it?

              You defended the right of a racist to deliver hate speech,

              I defended the right of a racist to advocate racism. Just as my mother, a Holocaust survivor, defended the right of Nazis to march through Skokie.

              Are you now calling my mother a Nazi?

              If not, then why are you calling me a racist or racist accommodator? On what basis?

              The difference is that racist discrimination against blacks does not affect you personally, but when I made it personal you went nuts.

              1. How do you know it does not affect me personally, and how exactly did you "make it personal"? And where, exactly did I "go nuts". One example of "going nuts" would be calling someone a "racist" and a "racist accommodator" merely because they stand up for the 1st Amendment - which you are apparently willing to throw in the dumpster, where it will have good company with habeus corpus.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:36:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You (And Paul & Stossel) Raise A Straw Man. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vyan

        Nazis Hold Annual Rally In Los Angeles - April 2010

        Neo-Nazis Rally In Phoenix - 2009
        Neo-Nazis Rally On Hannukah - 2009

        KKK Rally In Raleigh - 2009

        KKK Rally In GA - 2010

        Westboro Baptist Church Protests In IA - 2010

        Haters have all the free speech they want.  They also have all the freedom of association they want as individuals, i.e., various religious/militia/anti-government isolationist compounds around the country.

        Significantly, the discussions I've read so far overlook the size exclusion incorporated in the CRA.  IIRC Title VII only applies to businesses with 25 or more employees. There were also specific exclusions carved out for religious institutions that were not receiving tax money (tax money including contributions from blacks, women, Jews, Muslims, etc.).

        Conflating the first amendment gaurantees of individual liberty is IMO an intentional strategy to gain support from fair-minded (but not fully informed) persons by conjuring the spectre of reverse discrimination.

        The right has been lying about the actual contents of the CRA (esp. regarding affirmative action) since it was effectuated. Their long-game strategy has born great fruit. Hopefully a direct discussion will allow democrats (moderates, liberals, and progressives alike) to regain some of the ceded rhetorical ground.  

        •  Exactly what straw man did I raise? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          XNeeOhCon, Mudderway

          And what in anything I said agreed with either Paul's or Stossel's position?

          It is you who have created a straw man by implying that I suggested in any way that haters do not "have all the free speech they want", or that they are denied "all the freedom of association they want".

          There is nothing in any of my comments, particularly not the first one, that suggests anything of the kind.

          My entire argument has been in support of free speech, and that includes our speech opposing theirs.

          You now need to apologize for making false statements about my intent and for erecting straw men to attack me.

          If you disagree, I challenge you to quote any statement from me - not just in this diary, but out of the thousands of comments I have made on Daily Kos - that suggests, in any way, shape or form, anything but consistent - indeed, life long - opposition to the likes of Rand Paul and his theocrat authoritarian father, about whom I have written exensively - consistent, indeed life-long opposition to discrimination AND racism AND prejudice of ANY kind.

          Failing that, you should have the decency to withdraw your assertions about me and apologize.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:42:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Having read through this thread I have little (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RandomActsOfReason

            expectation on an apology to you.  Hestal fancies him/herself some sort of clever vigilante crusader enforcing outrage against the Paul/Stossel idiocy that has recently cropped up.  Since Hestal seems to believe that anyone not typing their fingers numb about how terrible they are is tacitly advocating support for their position then having the temerity, as you have, to suggest it is their constitutional right to say what they have is tantamount to pissing on MLK Jr.'s grave.  

            Of course your legitimate point is lost in the ensuing crusade to prove just how terrible you are for not spending every waking second chasing John and Rand up a tree.

            I'm sure that my comment will be further assumed to be defense of racism and attacked.  

            Note to Hestal: you may not create an opinion of mine from the whole cloth of what I didn't say.

            "The first reaction of a progressive should be not to look at who is the target of hate, but to reject the hate first." -RandomActsOfReason

            by XNeeOhCon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:19:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I Was Responding To This Part Of Your Comment: (0+ / 0-)

            We must be extremely careful, particularly after 8 years of intolerance for dissent and diverse opinions, and particularly these days, not to throw out the sacred democratic baby of free speech with the dirty bathwater of discrimination and injustice.

            I have not made and do not now make any personal attack on you. I have not stated that you agree with Stossel or Paul. I was trying to highlight the false underlying assumption made by Paul and Stossel that free speech rights are infringed by the CRA.

            My point about your initial comment was that we should not cede that ground to them.  People supporting the government's right to regulate businesses are not undermining any individual's right to free speech or association.

            If you can show me language in my comment suggesting that you support racism or authoritarianism or anything else, I apologize.

            •  "you (and Paul and Stossel) raise a straw man" (0+ / 0-)

              I ask again, what straw man did I raise, and what comment have I made - here in this diary, or in my entire history of thousands of comments on Daily Kos - that in anyway puts me in line with any argument presented by Paul or Stossel?

              When you put us all in the same title, and use "straw man", single, you are clearly asserting that I made the straw man you say you were referring to - that "free speech rights are infringed by the CRA".

              Having showed language in your comment that suggests that I support racism or authoritarianism or anything else Paul or Stossel are arguing for, I hope you will apologize.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:34:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll Start With The Straw Man I Perceive In (0+ / 0-)

                Paul's and Stossel's argument.

                They argue that we must consider the freedom of speech (but mean assembly/ association) rights guaranteed to individuals in the Constitution (Bill of Rights) when we assess the validity of the government's exercise of power in prohibiting a privately-owned business' "right to discriminate."

                They are falsely claiming that free speech rights are necessarily infringed and the government cannot constitutionally act in that sphere.

                Apparently accepting that false linkage, your comment warns us not to throw out our allegiance to the right of free speech for all.

                I characterized this linkage as a straw man because it is a false linkage.  The government's exercise of its constitutional authority to regulate privately owned businesses (and property more broadly) does not implicate individual free speech rights.

                I never questioned your allegiance to upholding free speech and I never attacked you personally. If I used the phrase "straw man" incorrectly, I hope this explains the intent behind my comment.

                •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                  Apparently accepting that false linkage, your comment warns us not to throw out our allegiance to the right of free speech for all.

                  "apparently accepting that false linkage??" That is an unjustified assumption on your part, and you know what they say about assumptions...

                  Then, you continue to argue against Paul and Stossel's point, as if I support it - otherwise, why continue to dispute it in response to my comments, which simply ask you to either demonstrate where I made a similar "straw man" argument, or apologize for the false accusation.

                  The next quote is doubly ironic, given that you steadfastly ignore my repeatedly stated intent:

                  If I used the phrase "straw man" incorrectly, I hope this explains the intent behind my comment.

                  In otherwords, I'm was wrong, but I just can't bring myself to say I'm sorry.

                  I'll accept anyway :-)

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  I think most can agree with the concept (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RandomActsOfReason

        that anyone has the right to be an asshole, but not when that right affects other people's right to their own free expression or other rights.

        Normal is a setting on a washing machine. -- escapee

        by Cali Scribe on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:38:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most, but distressingly not all (0+ / 0-)

          and the naysayers here on the Left are just as loud, if lesser in number, than the naysayers on the Right.

          And, the majority of the Left seems to tolerate them as much as the majority of the Right tolerates their authoritarian wing.

          That is what disturbs me. Weakening support for the 1st Amendment is a bipartisan phenomenon.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:56:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Healthcare is not a right? (13+ / 0-)

      Remember that argument?

      So the Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians claim that Healthcare is not a right but racism is.  It just goes to show where their priorities lie.

    •  Corporations have rights (10+ / 0-)

      People do not, apparently...

      That's Countdown for the 2,082nd day since Mission Accomplished. You thought that would change? Are the troops home yet? Keith Olbermann January 20, 2009

      by Ed in Montana on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:18:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Brilliance in brevity. This is the issue, Ed. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lightshine

        I wish people would wake up and smell the fucking coffee Libertarians and Conservatives the likes of Ayn Rand Paul, Fossil, and Cooch wanna serve the rest of us.

        I have the right to say that - right?

        "John McCain has rounded up and deported his principles." --- Jonathan Alter, Newsweek.

        by marabout40 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:31:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bigotry is a right (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lone1c, Vyan

      One of my close friends is a conservative Christian.  She believes that I am going to hell.  She is a bigot and it is her right to be a bigot.

      However, she is also a nurse.  She does not have the right to refuse treatment to me because I am not a Christian.

      Thinking black people, or white people, or Muslims, or athiests, or Christians, or gingers, or fat people, or skinny people, or vegans, or non-vegans, are less than you by virtue of their choices/beliefs/birth is absolutely a right.

      Refusing goods or services to them based on those beliefs is not a right, because of the Civil Rights Act.  

      Does the prevention of discrimination by private businesses limit freedom of some people?  Of course it does.  It limits the freedom of those bigots who wish to refuse their goods or services.  

      Does the Civil Rights Act, on balance, provide more freedom to the population as a whole than it removes?  Of course it does, and that is why it was one of the most important pieces of legislation ever enacted in this country.

      There is, however, a gigantic difference between legislating commerce and legislating thought.  The principle defining the First Amendment in this country is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

  •  People have a right to racist beliefs (34+ / 0-)

    They do not have a right to act on those beliefs. According to Stossel's line of reasoning, you not only have the right to hate someone, but you have the right to kill them as well.

    They keep digging deeper and deeper...

    You don't bring a knife to a gunfight and you don't bring a chicken to the doctor.

    by beltane on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:05:46 AM PDT

    •  Individuals not only (7+ / 0-)

      have a right to be bigots and assholes, they have the right to discriminate all they like in their individual sphere so long as they don't break the law. Assault is still against the law, for instance.

      What I wonder is whether the recent SCOTUS ruling about corporate "personhood" abrogates the Civil Rights Act by actually giving businesses the right to discriminate.

      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

      by Joieau on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:48:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but Fossil's and Ayn Rand's point is (0+ / 0-)

        THEY WANT TO REPEAL THE LAW so it would no longer be a crime for people to act out their hatred.

        "John McCain has rounded up and deported his principles." --- Jonathan Alter, Newsweek.

        by marabout40 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:34:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There was no such ruling, (2+ / 0-)

        so you don't need to worry about that.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:47:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think he ment (0+ / 0-)

          Citizen's United, which gave corporations the "right" to contribute unlimited sums of money to political campaigns.

          •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RandomActsOfReason

            But there is a popular conception at Daily Kos that the Citizens United ruling involved corporate personhood. But it did not.

            "The government needs to spend its money on more important things, such as anti-tobacco programs, pro-tobacco programs, killing wild donkeys, and Israel."

            by Lost Left Coaster on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:10:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I knew what they meant, (2+ / 0-)

            but what they meant doesn't mean what they think it means.

            Citizen's United is not about corporate "personhood" in any way. And very few people here seem to grok that.

            --Shannon

            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

            by Leftie Gunner on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:13:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Citizens United (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              was the recent ruling I referred to, extending the legal personhood of corporations to influence political campaigns previously forbidden to them by statute. Actual legal personhood of corporations was established FAPP by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway in 1886. While corporations are not natural persons, they are legal persons for provisions of the 14th Amendment.

              U.S.C. 1.1 specifies:

              "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

              Thus it might appear that in this context either individuals have no 'right' to discriminate, or businesses DO have the 'right' to discriminate. Fortunately, the Civil Rights Act was indeed written to indicate otherwise.

              Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

              by Joieau on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:34:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The status of corporations as (0+ / 0-)

                legal persons has nothing to do with the Citizens United case.

                The decision was all about the powers of Congress to regulate political speech and action. The Court ruled that they have almost no power in this area, regardless of the identity of the speakers / actors.

                The words "corporate personhood" could have never been uttered by any lawyer in the history of the United States, and not one word of Citizens United would need to change as a result.

                If your going to disagree with the decision, please do so on legal grounds that are part of it, or you are not making an argument. There are many reasons to disagree with this decision. "Corporate personhood" just doesn't happen to be one of them.

                --Shannon

                "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                by Leftie Gunner on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:43:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed (10+ / 0-)

      We cannot legislate individual thought, opinion and mindset. We can't tell people what to think via law. People are inherently entitled to their own thoughts--and the law needs to be respectful of that. So in that sense, it is a right to think whatever you wish about anything, including race.

      But what an individual does not have a right to do--or at least, should not have the right to do in a just society--is degenerate other people based on their own subjective thoughts. Individual thought falls within the sphere of individual liberty. Actions that affect the lives and well-being of others falls within the spheres of civic responsibility and personal accountability for individual actions within the community. And those spheres we can and should legislate. This is why when you murder someone, the state presses charges against you and holds you accountable. A murder is a violation of civic responsibility, and to correct it, the state has the right to hold you accountable.

      Murder is heinous because it's the worst form of degeneration of another person within society. It's an act that violates the inherent good of society: to protect and preserve the lives and dignity of the individuals living within it. But any violation of that social purpose, from letting children starve to refusing a person commerce based on personal prejudices to commercial disasters like oil spills, needs to be addressed via the law. It's the WHOLE point of having laws, to preserve the purpose of the social structure and make sure the the good of society isn't unjustly hijacked by individual interests, motives, or in this case, biases.

      -8.50, -7.64 "We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress." - Will Rogers

      by croyal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:19:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you for your articulate explanation of society's need for justice and laws to protect all.

        "Make haste and shoot," the Major sneered;"a minute more I give; A minute more to kill your friend,if you yourself would live". "Jean Desprez", Robert Service

        by brainyblond on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:41:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You left out speech (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rick Aucoin, Mudderway

        you talk about thoughts and actions, and note that thoughts are free but actions are regulated - but you leave out speech.

        People not only have the right to express repugnant thoughts, and the law not only needs to respect that, but every civil libertarian should champion that right, cherish it and we willing to defend the right of even the most repugnant speaker to speak free.

        If you disagree (I don't know your position on speech, because you left it out), please explain the basis for your disagreement.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:46:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RandomActsOfReason

          It's amazing how too many here are trying to weasel out of saying what they REALLY think, much like Rand Paul did on Rachel Maddow.  

          Cowardly.  If you folks really do think that the KKK should be forbidden by law to publish pamphlet and march in orderly gathering to further their vile cause then say so.

          I'll say the opposite, and fight to the death if need to be to protect those vile bastard's right to say what they will say.

          :: Not so hopeful now ::

          by Rick Aucoin on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:20:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They have the right to discriminate based (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mudderway

      on race and national origin in many circumstances.

      It is in employment, housing, public business, etc., where it is unlawful.

      One the other hand, a person can refuse to golf with Irishmen all she wants...

  •  Trust me on this. (18+ / 0-)

    The number of people who believe that it is part of Freedom of Speech is astounding.  And as long as people who do not believe that bigotry is a right fail to pass law to protect those who are less "normal", people will continue to believe it is a right...and act on that right.

    •  so only nice speech is protected? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mudderway
      •  Freedom of Speech should not confer the right... (10+ / 0-)

        ...to refuse public accommodations, housing, or employment opportunity.

        It's not about nice speech.  It's about actions.

        •  So let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

          Oh never mind.  This whole discussion is beyond pointless.  Everyone has their minds made up. No one is going to think and no one is going to change a single position or consider anything new

          I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

          by Guinho on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not pointless... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fixed Point Theorem

            ...to those of us who are denied public accommodations, housing, or jobs.

            •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

              This is a debate you want to have?  I don't think you have the slightest interest in discussing whether business owners perhaps do have a right to run business in an odious fashion. I think rather you have made a determination and you point is to force it on everyone.  

              To be honest I see the merit in that attitude.  Perhaps this souls not be up for discussion.  I'm not saying that your impulse is wrong and even that I disagree with the idea that it is not up for discussion.  I don't actually think many are that interested in entertaining other ideas. But we should be clear we are advocating the use of force to make other people act in violation of their beliefs and in compliance with ours.  Let us be clear that that is the decision that has been taken here.  

              No. I think discussion is pointless because this is beyond discussion.  Even pointing out there is a discussion that could be had will probably get me an hr.   Such is the way of things.   I was just reminding myself of those facts

              I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

              by Guinho on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:34:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  "Bigotry" is a worldview, it is in the realm (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mudderway

          of thought. When expressed, it is in the realm of speech. When acted upon, it is in the realm of action.

          Bigotry in thought and speech are, in fact, protected in the US by the 1st Amendment.

          Bigotry translated into harmful action that infringes upon the rights of others is prohibited by law.

          Freedom of speech does not confer the right to refuse the things you mention. But freedom of speech DOES confer the right to advocate for such refusal. If we give the government the right to decide what laws may or may not be advocated for, we ALL lose our freedoms. That is why the US is in the unique position in all the world in going farther than any other in allowing what even a broad consensus of society considers repugnant speech.

          Nazism is legal in the US NOT because Americans love Nazis, but because Americans love FREEDOM.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:50:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not prohibited... (3+ / 0-)

            ...when it is directed towards, for example, transfolk.

            •  That is clearly wrong (0+ / 0-)

              and, if you are referred by "It" to illegal discrimination or other action that infringes upon transfolk's rights, it is also illegal in many cases, and should be in many others.

              However, as much as we hate it, prejudicial speech is part of the package of the 1st Amendment. No one has figured out a way to prohibit hurtful words without destroying our fundamental freedoms.

              Basically, none of us have a "right" not to be offended. It is in the realm of culture and education and social mores to create a more tolerant, accepting, inclusive and nonjudgmental society. We can legislate how people think, and we have not been successful in figuring out how to legislate how people speak, without hurting us all.

              We can only legislate how people act.

              Meanwhile, as good progressives, we shouldn't sit back and expect legislation to solve all society's ills, anyway. We need to take upon ourselves to spread progressive values through education, example and by exercising our Constitutionally protected right to free speech :-)

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:30:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  WHat I am referring to is that... (3+ / 0-)

                ...it is not "illegal discrimination" to discriminate against transpeople, either by the federal government or by the citizens of 37 states.

                •  And I am stating that that is wrong (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lone1c

                  In point of fact, though this may be topic for another conversation, I believe it is a mistake to define anti-discrimination clauses in terms of classes of people.

                  ALL discrimination that infringes upon the Constitutional rights of another citizen should be prohibited. Just as we don't list what speech is protected, because we'll leave out vital pieces, we shouldn't define which classes are protected, because we'll leave out vital groups of people.

                  I also believe that, in our progressive rhetoric, we should stop talking about gay rights, or atheist rights, or transfolk rights, or the rights of the disabled.

                  Rather, we should promote the notion that all people are equally deserving of respect, equality under the law, dignity and inclusion in American society.

                  ALL prejudice is wrong. ALL bigotry is wrong. There is NO acceptable form of discrimination based on ANY class. IMO. None.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:52:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It would be great to do that... (4+ / 0-)

                    ...but it would seem rather worthless until all people have equal rights.

                    I also believe that, in our progressive rhetoric, we should stop talking about gay rights, or atheist rights, or transfolk rights, or the rights of the disabled.

                    •  It's a bit of a chicken or an egg thing (0+ / 0-)

                      I believe we won't achieve it until we talk the talk.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:59:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Easy for people to say and believe... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...from the inside looking out.

                        •  That is not only unfair, it is also unreasonable (0+ / 0-)

                          First of all, I do not - and did not - propose an either-or scenario. I believe we should push for legislation that guarantees equality for all, and civil rights protections for all.

                          AND, I think we should promote the notion that the problem is prejudice itself - not just prejudice against X or Y.

                          Defining it in terms of prejudice against me or my group just served to divide and weaken us, when we should all be working in common cause.

                          Furthermore, it legitimizes and institutionalizes discrimination - for example, discrimination by gays against transfolk, or by black theists against atheists, or by atheists against...well, I can't think of anyone atheists as a group discriminate against or seek to limit their rights, but undoubtedly there are plenty of individually prejudiced atheists.

                          The point is that we should be teaching our children that it is wrong to define people by external characteristics, that we should, in fact, judge people by the content of their character.

                          How you think we can ever get there if we don't even try, if we don't teach that as a desirable goal, simply by passing another bit of legislation to protect another single group, I don't understand.

                          No need to judge me or be hostile to me. You seem to be expressing prejudice against me, in a way, because you perceive me as belonging to some kind of group, rather than as an individual human being of good will who is discussing the best strategy to promote the human rights of all.

                          Final point - the fact that you seem to think that only people within an aggrieved group have the motivation, the need, the empathy or the right to advocate for their rights is something I find common, but distressing.

                          For me, a core part of being a liberal and a progressive is being committed as a human being to promoting progressive values for ALL people. I was taught not to look out for my own and fight only for my rights, but to seek to elevate those most discriminated against, those least fortunate, and to help those most in need, wherever they may be in the world.

                          I'm not sure why, but that doesn't seem to be what liberal progressives are taught to value these days. We seem to have internalized the Reagan myth that the best way to equality is for each person or group to fight and claw all the others in a social darwinist free market of civil rights, and somehow, magically it will balance out in the end.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:30:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I spend my time teaching... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            RandomActsOfReason, soothsayer99

                            ...so that people will understand the cause...and have been doing so for nearly two decades.  But when push comes to shove, most people turn their back.  Heck, we can't even get a vote in Congress in favor of equality.

                            Transpeople are at the bottom of the well when it comes to equal rights.  We aren't fighting against anyone else's rights.  It is just the case that when you get down to us...it becomes more about "rights for everyone" and we get fundamentally dismissed as people.

                            It would be good if you could try to grasp that rather than trying to paint us as Reaganites.

                          •  I most certainly haven't singled out transfolk (0+ / 0-)

                            and painted you as Reaganites. I pretty explicitly talked about a general tendency in the Left and among all minorities. I'm sorry you continue to misinterpret me as somehow attacking transfolk, when my argument is anything but.

                            For that matter, you do me an injustice when you assume I am only making that argument to transfolk. It is a principled argument that I have consistently made, including for years in many comments here on Daily Kos, in discussions with everyone - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Theists, atheists, gays, lesbians bisexual and transfolk, everyone.

                            I don't change my argument, or my strategy, when talking to you. Please judge me as an individual human being, not as the member of a pejorative group. I certainly have never, in any way, suggested that you are anything but a human individual.

                            I am not in any way comparing our situations or the quality of the discrimination against us, so please do not deflect the conversation into an imaginary competition between atheists and transfolk; AND, as an atheist, within the spectrum of belief groups, I often feel that we are at the bottom of our own well. In our case, rather than say it is more about "rights for everyone", theists simply deny that we have a case at all. Again, not to make comparisons, but to seek common ground and to say that I empathize with your frustration. AND, I also do not believe in advocating for "Atheist's Rights" separate from all other rights.

                            It is a position I have consistently held, and continue to feel is the best way to the common goal we all hold.

                            We may differ on the best strategy, but that does not mean that I do not support your efforts, nor that I seek to derail or sap energy from efforts to gain legal protections for, and end prejudice against, transfolk.

                            I believe in AND, not OR. In a Reagan world, there is always a winner and a loser; there is not enough room for both, and one must take away from the other.

                            I don't live in that world. I live in a world where love, compassion, caring, acceptance and inclusion are all endlessly renewing resources. There is no scarcity when it comes to the ability to be human.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:48:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I only speak about transfolk... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...because that is what I know and because the mistreatment of transfolk is what I have sworn to fight against.

                            If you feel that I am speaking against you here, please know that I am not doing anything but speaking against your words and the thoughts they represent, from my perspective.

                            No, it is not necessary for there be a loser for people to gain rights...unless you are assigning "rights" to people who define their existence by other people not having equal rights.  That is what I am speaking against here...and to a certain extent, you seem to be seeking to justify such people.

                          •  The right to free speech extends to all Americans (0+ / 0-)

                            including racists like Paul and Stossel. I defend the 1st Amendment, absolutely - and unapologetically.

                            If you argue that they should be deprived of their right to free speech, or that the 1st Amendment should only apply to people you deem pleasant and acceptable, then we most certainly differ.

                            If you keep arguing that I am "justifying" or "seeking to justify" such people, then I have to, reluctantly, conclude that you aren't engaging with me in good faith, because you continue to disparage me, impugn my motives and ascribe to me straw men that have no relation to the actual words I have typed.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:52:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  It's in the ballpark. (0+ / 0-)

      The "right to expressive association" emerges from the penumbra of the free speech and peaceable assembly clauses of the first amendment.  That right protected, for example, the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude gays as the SCOTUS held in Boy Scouts v Dale.  

      That obviously doesn't encompass any sort of commercial organizations, and the court has interpreted "commerce" very broadly in the past, but the right to exclude others is still - conceptually, at least - a part of free speech.

  •  Tea Bagger's "RIGHTS" (6+ / 0-)

    Tea Baggers are obsessed with the need to vilifying others. It's in their blood. Blood is thicker than mud, it's a sad family affair.

  •  Big empathy fail (26+ / 0-)

    Stossel apparently is too dim to imagine being black and being turned away, even violently, from a business because of his blackness.

    It is more than a minor inconvenience, John. It is a hardship, a threat, and worse. Imagine having your children with you and being turned away, with racist slurs as well. In front of your kids.

    Imagine driving through a "sundown town" and having to be sure you didn't linger too long. Imagine not being able to buy gas for your car in order to leave the area, because no one will sell it to you: "We don't serve blacks."

    Imagine living your life like that, being told at every turn that you are not a man, because of your skin color. Because that is what life was like for people of color before the Civil Rights Act.

  •  the line between "racism enablers" and "racists" (19+ / 0-)

    is sooooooo thin it is in fact invisible as far as i am concerned

    let's just call them who they are -- RACISTS

    "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

    by soothsayer99 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

    •  Actually, it's against white folks's rules... (14+ / 0-)

      to call any white people racist.

      We've done a pretty good job at societal enforcement of that and related rules. The "it's not race, it's class" lie, and a brazillion other things, big and small.

      I'll forward you a copy of the How To Be A Better White Person manual. Apparently yours got lost in the mail. :P

    •  it is really soft racism and hard racism (5+ / 0-)

      It is those who say ' the (assimilated- read white acting) minority I know is a great person but all those other ones in that ghetto over there are savages.' enabling those who 'say the only good... is a dead ...'
      If they are enabling racism they are racists just not loud mouth hard core racists.

      That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

      by stevie avebury on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:40:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KentuckyKat

        "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

        by soothsayer99 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:48:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean, like MLK hoped we'd become? (0+ / 0-)

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:13:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  color-blind racism (0+ / 0-)

            defined

            king had a dream we are not there yet

            Social scientists have coined the term colorblind racism to refer to what is likely the most common type of racism in contemporary America.? Colorblind theorists start from the idea that racism in contemporary America differs from racism of earlier eras.? Although I used the term colorblind racism, I think it is useful to point out that several different terms have been used to describe contemporary racism.? Symbolic racism, laissez faire racism, and colorblind racism are the most common terms I have seen.

            So how does the new racism differ from the old racism?? Using attitude data from the National Election Survey, political scientists David O. Sears and Christopher Tarman (2005)? used a statistical technique called factor analysis to examine whether or not the new racism differed from the old racism.? Their analysis indicated that there were two types of racism.? Old fashioned racism or Jim Crow racism was marked by the following attitudes–opposition to intermarriage, belief in segregation, belief in biologically based intellectual inferiority, and opposition to voting for a black president.? They identified symbolic racism as the following set of attitudes–belief that blacks lack motivation, belief that discrimination is not the cause of racial inequality, belief that racism gets too much government attention, and a belief that blacks should work their way up with no special favors.? Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith (1997)? favor the term laissez faire racism. They? argue that laissez faire racism involves three key elements� persistent negative stereotyping of African Americans, opposition to policies to improve the conditions of African Americans, and a tendency to blame African Americans for the persistent gap in socio-economic standing.

            Colorblind racism is similar.? Sociologists Eduardo Bonilla Silva argues that colorblind racism involves

              1. increasingly covert racial discourses and practices,
              2. avoidance of racial terminology and claims by whites that they experience �reverse discrimination,�
              3. a racial agenda in the discussion of political matters that avoids direct racial references,
              4. invisibility of the mechanisms of racial inequality, and
              5. the rearticulation of some of the elements of Jim Crow racism (pg. 90).

            One of the most important elements of contemporary racism is the emergence of the �colorblind ideology.� The colorblind ideology asserts that color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments. The key problem with colorblind ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice (Bonilla Silva 2001).

            "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

            by soothsayer99 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:07:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree with the conclusion of that argument (0+ / 0-)

              Most profoundly - and that article makes nearly the same confusion you do, between legally prohibited actions and legally protected thought and speech.

              The colorblind ideology asserts that color is not important and should not be the basis for social judgments. The key problem with colorblind ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice

              "Social judgments" are not the same as legal rights.

              I do assert that color should not be the basis for social judgments. I would be astonished to hear anyone who calls themselves a "progressive" state that we should judge people, in a social context, based on the color of their skin. THAT is racism, pure and simple - that is the DEFINITION of racism!

              That is the Stossel/Paul argument - that businesses should be legally allowed to make social judgments based on color. I reject that argument. Business should be color blind, and our laws should only use color to correct any social imbalances that are the result of past or present discrimination.

              As for being colorblind in terms of SOCIAL JUDGMENTS "not holding true in practice", I dispute that as well. People who do not judge others socially based on race, don't judge others socially based on race.

              People who do, do.

              Now, we should not RELY on goodwill ideals such as the strange argument that everyone is now suddenly colorblind, AS THE BASIS OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS.

              We don't make law based on ideals, we make laws based on worst cases.

              Now, in the legislative arena, while we all strive for a society where, at some future point, color will NOT be the basis for legal judgments, the historical and contemporary realities require us to take it into account in our legislation - but ONLY in a favorable way, that seeks to compensate for past injustices and current inequalities - NOT in a way that seeks to discriminate based on color.

              So, I would agree with the following statement:

              "Any ideology that asserts that color is not an issue and should not be a criteria for legal discrimination is wrong. The key problem with such an ideology is that it is an abstract principle that does not hold true in practice."

              I strive to be not only colorblind, but blind to sexual preference, able-bodiedness, eye angle, or any other superficial group characteristic that has no bearing on the content of a person's character.

              It is disheartening to hear people apparently dismissing MLK's dream as naive, even undesirable, rather than as something we need to continue to strive for.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:20:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, but must say... (0+ / 0-)

          the color-blind thing catches a lot of well-meaning people who just haven't yet come to realize that it is offensive...I was there until someone explained it to me in BlackKos and I would like to think that it was ignorance, not malice.  

          We all have the same ideals ... the same goals. It's our road maps that differ.

          by KentuckyKat on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:54:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They are the Racists Wait Staff (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soothsayer99, lightshine

      Not quite the owner of the establishment, but they keep the bowls shiny and fresh.

    •  That's what Rand and Stossel WANT. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soothsayer99

      "Oh, I hate racism (wink, wink) but I want to support, encourage and facilitate rampant racial discrimination."

      It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

      by teachme2night on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:42:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well done Vyan (16+ / 0-)

    I'm loving this video as simple illustration of the stakes involved.

    My leader is Barack Hussein Obama the finest President this country has ever elected. Face Front and Respect

    by Adept2u on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:22:52 AM PDT

  •  Another case of free-marketer error. (16+ / 0-)

    It's not a free market if any group, no matter how small, can exclude members of any other group from participating.

    A consistent position in favor of a free market requires that there be no discrimination on the basis of

    race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    Free markets don't solve all problems, but they are not consistent with bigotry.

    Then again I've long noted that people who claim that free markets solve all problems don't really want truly free markets, as they always favor laws that stack things on the side of those with the most money.

    "Trust only those who doubt" Lu Xun

    by LookingUp on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:24:27 AM PDT

  •  Amen n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, soothsayer99

    Speak softly and carry a big can of tuna.

    by Cat Whisperer on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:42:39 AM PDT

  •  Markets provably do NOT self-correct for racism. (21+ / 0-)

    STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

    KELLY: How do you know that, John?

    STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

    Segregated and racist businesses survived for generations until the government intervened.

    I give you plantations as an example.

    The Woolworth's lunch counter.

    Every racist restaurant and hotel. None shut down for not serving blacks. But many were shut down for serving blacks.

    So yes this is knowable. Provable. Markets do not correct for racism. They reinforce it.

    Stossel is a liar.
    Stossel is a racist.

    Waffles Are Delicious!

    by nosleep4u on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:45:28 AM PDT

    •  There are people who aren't racist (4+ / 0-)

      who believe in some all-powerful force of the market's hand that eventually corrects all wrongs. The problem is that they are ignoring data that contradicts their beliefs in order to support their libertarian theories.

      I won't speak for Stossel. But there are non-racists who think this way, and we look stupid when we assume anyone who thinks this way is a racist.

    •  Our most racist president made a similar (7+ / 0-)

      argument. President Andrew Johnson said that a free labor market would produce good working and living conditions for the freed slaves. For example, Johnson said:

      Undoubtedly the freed man should be protected, but he should be protected by the civil authorities, especially by the exercise of all the constitutional powers of the courts of the United States and of the states. His condition is not so exposed as may at first be imagined. He is in a portion of the country where his labor cannot well be spared. Competition for his services from planters, from those who are constructing or repairing railroads, and from capitalists in his vicinage or from other states will enable him to command almost his own terms. He also possesses a perfect right to change his place of abode, and if, therefore, he does not find in one community or state a mode of life suited to his desires or proper remuneration for his labor, he can move to another where his labor is more esteemed and better rewarded.

      In truth, however, each state, induced by its own wants and interests, will do what is necessary and proper to retain within its borders all the labor that is needed for the development of its resources. The laws that regulate supply and demand will maintain their force, and the wages of the laborer will be regulated thereby. There is no danger that the exceedingly great demand for labor will not operate in favor of the laborer.

       
      Johnson’s free market theory was absurd. The "Black Codes" of the southern states made clear that there would be no negotiations between management and labor. Under these laws, a black worker could not quit his job without the permission of his employer. By law, the tyranno-South required the black laborer to supply what white management demanded. Deliberately or not, Johnson was establishing lines of defense for the rebel States as they moved to reestablish the old order. Tyranni do not like government controls and Johnson was no exception—in fact he was an early champion of deregulation. He was trying to keep federal officials from interfering in the internal affairs of the tyranno-South, which had lost a war but still believed in white supremacy, and "some men are created unequal."

      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

      by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:10:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mamamedusa, nosleep4u

      for Ron Paul, Reagan, Bush 1 and Jack Kemp, and who has turned away from the lunacy of modern conservatives, posted this a few days ago.

      Ron Paul is still opposed to the CRA, Reagan was opposed.

      To be sure, the Rehnquist-Bork position was not a lame rationalization for racism. It was rooted in the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 essentially replicated the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which was enacted by a Republican Congress over strenuous Democratic opposition. However, in 1883 the Supreme Court, then it its most libertarian phase, knocked down the 1875 act as well as many other Republican measures passed during Reconstruction designed to aid African Americans. The Court's philosophy in these cases led logically to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which essentially gave constitutional protection to legal segregation enforced by state and local governments throughout the U.S.

      As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

      In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

      http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...

  •  Rand Paul confirmed Tea Party racism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sable, Captain Antelope, soothsayer99

    with his comments. He is also tying the Republican Party to his views. I think it is hilarious that they don't quite know what to do with him. Backing out of MTP is the cowardly thing to do. I don't see how he recovers from this, but then, in Kentucky, they are probably cheering him on.

  •  Racism is too a right. (6+ / 0-)

    People have the right to believe or say racist things. What you're arguing here is that specific types of racism aren't protected from government intervention. So why don't you say what you actually mean, instead of couching it in big, flashy terms like "racism is NOT a right!" before you make us all stupider?

    Of course I agree with your basic point--the government has to intervene in these cases, and the good of many in this case outweighs the rights of the few to do as they please. But this has nothing to do with racism being a right or not being a right--this is not about the government playing morality police, it's about the government protecting a minority within population from harm.

    •  "within *its* population" nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  Racism is system that benefits whites (5+ / 0-)

      this should be distinguished from racist attitudes which people do have a "right' to hold

      Racism as individual or institutional disrimination is however illegal

      most European Americans mistakenly believe that racial bigotry is a product of intentional (though perhaps sometimes unconscious) interactions between individuals. Contrary to this popular belief, a large and well-established body of social scientific research empirically reveals that racial bigotry is the result of deeply rooted social and institutional processes referred to as systemic racism. Systemic racism includes a complex array of racially bigoted practices, unjustly gained political-economic power of European Americans, continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and racist ideologies and attitudes that maintain and rationalize European American privilege and power.

      Since European Americans are so immersed in the propaganda of systemic racial conditioning they readily accept the deceptive equation of racism with prejudice and believe "race" rather than racism is the reason for racial injustice. This view is fallacious because it ignores the fact that racial bigotry is not merely a product of intentional interactions between individuals but racialized social relationships developed over generations and manifested in all of society’s major institutions.

      "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

      by soothsayer99 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that's an abusive definition of a term (3+ / 0-)

        that is so widely interpreted to mean "racist attitudes" that the concepts are interchangeable. If you say "racism is illegal", you're stating an untruth--because of what people will inevitably and predictably interpret your words to mean. You can't assign personal definitions to a term and then expect others to use them.

        There are also lots of other, more specific terms to describe the circumstances you're referring to. "Systematic racism", for instance, is what they say here--that is better, though still imprecise.

        •  no the public & MSM abuse the definition (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mahakali overdrive

          often willfully and quite conveniently in fact

          scholars and activists are trying toset the record start -- they are hardly the lingusitic abusers here

          "....while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." Eugene V. Debs

          by soothsayer99 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:20:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Racism is illegal. Racism is the practice of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soothsayer99

          discrimination based on race.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

          by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:24:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, discrimination based on race is the practice (5+ / 0-)

            of discrimination based on race. Racism is a term used to describe a million things relating to racial prejudice.

            Is it so hard to be precise? When we're precise, we have a better grasp on what we believe--and so do others.

            •  I am very precise. You are the one who is not. (0+ / 0-)

              My words come from the dictionary, but because they precisely reveal that you are wrong, you, in your usual way, redefine the word to suit your purposes. It is an old habit of people who do not think, but claim to think in order to justify unjustifiable positions.

              Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

              by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can't be serious. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dmh44, RandomActsOfReason

                Are you really saying you can't distinguish between racism and unlawful discrimination?

                Unlawful discrimination is actionable -- it doesn't even require the proponents to be aware that their actions are racist or unlawful. Racism is not actionable.

              •  I think this is a simple issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive

                of Academic versus popular parlance.

                Drives me up the wall when people use Modern to mean contemporary, and romantic to mean something other than Romantic.  

                All here would agree, I suspect, that institutional bias based on race is now illegal and should be.

                And most would agree that personal attitudes and personal actions which do not inhibit the rights of others, based on bias, however distasteful, are not and should not be illegal.

                So given that, it's probably best not to sling too much mud at each other based on different terminology.  

                http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

                by claytonben on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:30:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think it is a simple issue (0+ / 0-)

                  of hestal being unwilling to admit error, let alone the outrageous offensive insults he or she has spewed here, and is not moving the goalposts and tossing in red herrings to avoid the fact that her statement that it is illegal in the United States to voice support for racism - including racist policies - is simply, unequivocably, wrong.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:01:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I would largely agree with this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  soothsayer99

                  although I would defer to more academic parlance when the colloquial proves unclear, because at least academic language attempts some level of precision of self-definition whereas colloquial use can mean well neigh anything.

                  It is important to realize why people can't communicate too. Or sometimes just that they can't.

                  Listening can be far more important than talking, at times.

                  Racism is racism. I'm going full monty on the term and using it as an umbrella. And if part of it doesn't keep you dry, then it's a fucking abomination, period.

                  "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." -- MLK Jr.

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:09:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Read the text of the CRA, please (0+ / 0-)

            The crime being prohibited is not racism, it's "discrimination." Racism is the belief, discrimination is the criminal action that follows from racist belief.

    •  No, it is not a right. (3+ / 0-)

      Racist: "one who advocates or believes in racism."

      Racism: "the assumptin that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the superiority of one race over anothers."

      Racism: "a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles, a political or social system founded on racism."

      Racist: "advocating or practicing racism."

      Because of our national history and because of the practices and policies of many of our governmental entities, then those who speak in favor of discrmination based on race are by definiton racists and are advocating programs that are designed to exectute the principles of racism. That is not a right. You can believe what you want but you cannot speak in a way that encourages others to practice illegal discrimination or worse. Discrimination based on race is illegal in our nation and no one has the right to encourage others to commit the federal crime of illegal discrimination.

      Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

      by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:23:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My point: (4+ / 0-)

        Saying "racism isn't a right" forces people to misunderstand your view at a glance. It's stupid. People have a right to believe their wrong beliefs, even to advocate for racist programs. They don't have a right to discriminate.

        "Discrimination is not a right". If that's what you mean, say it. Otherwise, look forward to being misunderstood--and that's never good for enacting change. (Not that the left ever seems too concerned about it.)

        •  Also, hold on-- (3+ / 0-)

          you DO have a right to encourage others to commit crimes. Where did that come from? I have that right too:

          Go smoke weed. (Okay fine, you don't have to.)

          •  No, you don't. Just because what your are (0+ / 0-)

            doing is ignored by the enforcement officials does mean that you have the right to do it.

            Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

            by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:34:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have a legal right to tell you to commit crimes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nowhere Man, RandomActsOfReason

              and, if the circumstances are moral, a moral right to do so as well.

              As long as my language is not directly inciting violence, it is first-amendment speech.

              •  You have no such right. The most obvious example (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lightshine

                of this is to encourage someone to harm a gay person just because he is gay. You don't have the right to do that.

                Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

                by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:40:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It would be morally unjust--but I would be within (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rick Aucoin, RandomActsOfReason

                  my legal rights to encourage this, so long as we're not in the sort of situation where a mob could be compelled to violence.

                  I don't mean to be confrontational, but why are you preaching on something you don't seem to know much about? You aren't using language that can make this a meaningful conversation, you're just making vague assertions about what rights people do and don't have.

                •  Under what law, Hestal? (3+ / 0-)

                  I'm honestly interested.  I know you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, but I did not understand that it was illegal merely to discuss with someone the virtues of unlawful action.  That is what you're saying, finally.  Do you know the statute, or the law more generally?  

                  If so, this is a law that's broken all the time.  Heck, sodomy was illegal in Texas until relatively recently.  I broke this law gleefully (if unsuccessfully) on dozens of occasions.  

                  http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

                  by claytonben on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:33:44 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Was attempted sodomy a crime in Texas? :) nt (0+ / 0-)
                    •  Lawrence v. Texas (0+ / 0-)

                      According to Hestal, it was until 2003.

                      "Want to get a drink?" could have been the occasion for handcuffs:

                      Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

                      Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex.[citation needed]

                      The case attracted much public attention, and a large number of amici curiae ("friends of the court") briefs were filed. Its outcome was celebrated by gay rights advocates, who hoped that further legal advances might result as a consequence.

                      http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

                      by claytonben on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:12:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  You are misreading the comments. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive

            You can advocate to change programs and policy ( laws ) without advocating that others commit crimes. I may be in favor of higher speeding limits but that doesn't mean I currently speed or encourage others to do so.

            These are very clear lines being discussed here. It really behooves you to understand the distinctions before blasting other's comments.

            Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you.

            by jayden on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:40:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just advocated your commission of a crime. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin, RandomActsOfReason

              I demand you smoke weed, and run stop signs.

              Please, for the love of God, arrest me! (Except they can't--because this is still constitutionally protected speech. Which is my whole point.)

              I am being incredibly specific here, and I am referring specifically to your specific statement that it is a crime to advocate the commission of a crime. It. Is. Not. Go to school and learn that it is not, and save me the trouble of explaining it to you. High school civics would suffice.

              Again: I am telling you right now that I think you should start a fire in a grocery store. While it would be illegal to start a fire in a grocery store, it is NOT illegal for me to tell you to do so, or to advocate that you do it. It is morally unjust, yes--but within my legal rights.

              I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, here, please forgive the repetition. It behooves you to notice that I am speaking precisely to your point, and not misunderstanding any supposed distinctions you have supposedly made.

              •  You are blasting me for something I didn't say. (0+ / 0-)

                No where have I said you can't encourage others to commit crimes. I simply stated you don't have to encourage criminality if your desire is to change laws. I can advocate for the right to smoke weed without encouraging others to smoke weed or doing it myself.

                So take your smart-ass response and stuff it.

                Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you.

                by jayden on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:35:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, I got you confused with hestal. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jayden, RandomActsOfReason

                  I wouldn't disagree with this quote:

                  You can advocate to change programs and policy ( laws ) without advocating that others commit crimes. I may be in favor of higher speeding limits but that doesn't mean I currently speed or encourage others to do so.

                  This, however, is bullshit:

                  These are very clear lines being discussed here. It really behooves you to understand the distinctions before blasting other's comments.

                  Specifically, it is bullshit because the people I am responding to--who responded to my original comment--WERE saying just what I indicated: that it is illegal to advocate a crime. You may not have said that, but if you'd actually read the thread you'd know that this point was made, and that I was responding to it properly.

                  So please don't get all high-and-mighty and then accuse me of being a "smartass" with my own response. Or should I say, "It would behoove you to ensure you have identified the proper delineations in the conversation before involving yourself in its intricacies." Could you be more pretentious?

            •  We are also allowed to advocate for law-breaking (4+ / 0-)

              If we weren't allowed to do that, then merely suggesting an act of civil disobedience would be an act of civil disobedience.

              Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

              by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:18:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yup (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nowhere Man, RandomActsOfReason

                by some people's standards, MLK's speeches alone should have been justification for his arrest.

                Denver local right-wingnut pastor and talk-show host Bob Enyart makes that argument all the time, but pertaining to abortion.

                He asserts that not only should abortion be illegal and punishable by death, but so should advocating for it. He even wrote a novel depicting Gloria Allred and Pat Schroeder getting arrested for that very thing.

                liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                by RockyMtnLib on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Reread my comment. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fearwig, mahakali overdrive

                Perhaps you will notice we're talking about different aspects of the issue. I never said you can't advocate lawbreaking. I merely said you can promote changing laws without advocating lawlessness in the process.

                It's an important distinction.

                Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you.

                by jayden on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:38:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  These are different points, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RandomActsOfReason

                  but your point is essentially unrelated to what I was discussing with hestal and others. You suggest that I was failing to see this "distinction" when in fact they had not made that distinction. You imagined it. Since the two of us apparently don't disagree on this topic (in fact, since it is basically unrelated to the topic at hand), I'm not sure why we're arguing. See my other reply for more on that topic, if you must.

                •  You should be arguing with hestal, then (0+ / 0-)

                  because no one here but he or she is claiming that it is illegal to advocate lawbreaking (not that I heard either Paul or Stossel advocate lawbreaking, by the way, they advocated a revocation of the Civil Rights Act, which would be a lawful, if repugnant - and not remotely likely to happen - act).

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:06:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My original comment was intended for hestal. (0+ / 0-)

                    But the multi-paragraph response I received put words in my mouth so it was necessary to respond. The best response to my original comment probably would have been "Well, duh!"

                    C'est la vie

                    Through all your faults and all my complaints, I still love you.

                    by jayden on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:20:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I guess you meant "can" to mean "it's possible" (0+ / 0-)

                  whereas I read it as "it's legal". I hope you can understand why I'd make that mistake there -- especially since you used the "it's [not] legal" sense just now, when you wrote "I never said you can't advocate lawbreaking."

                  Sigh. Communication is hard work.

                  Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

                  by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:18:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I see that all you are left with is to (0+ / 0-)

          quibble on the choice of words. My meaning was clear.

          Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

          by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:33:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would go further. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rick Aucoin, RandomActsOfReason

          Generally a person has a right to discriminate based on any reason we can imagine.

          Only in specific circumstances are certain kinds of discrimination unlawful.

          •  I agree (4+ / 0-)

            bigots are within their rights not to let certain people into their homes, or to use their bigotry as a pretext to not patronize certain businesses.

            Bigoted parents even have the right to forbid their children from associating with certain people as long as those children are under their guardianship. It's a severely fucked up way to live and raise children, but trying to enforce laws against such things raises new problems. That's why those rights must be upheld.

            As many have eloquently (or not) stated here already, what people don't have the right to do is engage in discriminatory behavior that denies whole groups of people access to the basic economic life of the community. They can't hide behind 'my private property' in doing so.

            liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

            by RockyMtnLib on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:26:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think the concept of natural right (0+ / 0-)

        is being confused with the concept of legal right; on top of which, there is no one definition of natural right anyways. So the whole argument is contingent on some very troubling concepts. I personally believe in the notion that legal rights should strive to emulate what appear to be like natural rights... the right for access to food, the right to clean water, and the right to equal treatment. Our laws, unless being influenced by corrupt ideological forces, should reflect something basic, something Democratic and inclusive, that underlies the concept of human society. So in that ideal, Democratic space, yes, there is no such notion as codified racism and it is not a right.

        It is only a right in a corrupt society.

        Or a decayed society.

        And in a non-society, it isn't a right because there are no legal rights in such a society and again, natural rights have yet to truly be defined by anyone in a way that there is consensus about.

        Just to agree and to clarify why I agree that racism is NOT a right.

        "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." -- MLK Jr.

        by mahakali overdrive on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:14:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adept2u, Lost Left Coaster

    Did you see this diary the other day?
    The diarist likes what Rand Paul has to say, and goes further.

    I testified before the DC City Council in support of marriage equality. I gave my little sister away so she could kiss her new bride. And I firmly respect - and would vote to protect - the right of private citizens to discriminate against gay people.

    I got troll rated for saying that anyone who supported Paul's argument was supporting racism. Heh.

    Wearing it proudly!
    And what about those of other religions? Would they like to be able to shut out those that don't attend the big box churches too?

    A Creative Revolution- - To revolt within society in order to make it a little better- Krishnamurti

    by pale cold on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:53:35 AM PDT

  •  Fox News: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberalconservative

    The most trusted name in news (in 9 out of 10 trailer parks in the Midwest).

    Livin' on the hope of a Celtics NBA title.

    by farleftloon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:54:09 AM PDT

  •  asdf (9+ / 0-)

    Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.

    by kestrel9000 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 07:57:51 AM PDT

  •  Thank God for Rand Paul (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ahumbleopinion, J Brunner Fan

    I'm in Louisville KY and enjoying the prospect of Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul meeting within the hour at their "Unity" meeting in Frankfort.  Oh, I would love to be there to see Mitch sweat -- with his face locked in anger -- at the thought of supporting Rand Paul vs. Jack Conway.  

    Anyone who pisses off McConnell is doing our country a favor.  Thank God that NPR and Rachel Maddow exposed Paul's insanity this week.

    BTW -- Conway is a great candidate and will win in Nov. Demand that Meet the Press invite him to the show tomorrow, now that Paul chickened out.  

  •  Tell ABC to discriminate and FIRE Stossel (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    o the umanity, soothsayer99
  •  It wasn't "government" that said that blacks (6+ / 0-)

    could not spend the night in my county, it was civilian racists that threatened to beat or kill blacks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The KKK was not a "government" organization. Stossel is clearly a racist and so is Rand. So is Rand's daddy.

    But there were laws that enforced segregation back in the days Stossel and Kelly were talking about. And those "government" laws were put in place by the citizens who controlled the "government." The rulers of that era were White, Christian, Male, Heterosexual, Racists. The people who elected them to office were White, Christian, Male, Heterosexual, Racists. The non-whites could not vote. The non-Christians were not welcome and kept a low profile, and were never numerous enough to make a difference. The non-males were kept barefooted, pregnant and in the kitchen. The non-heterosexuals kept their sexual orientation secret. And most of the non-racists kept quiet.

    The creeps, and they really are creeps, like Stossel and Rand, are an abomination when compared to the ideals of the the American Way. They are evil.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning.

    by hestal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:01:15 AM PDT

  •  Racism is a right (4+ / 0-)

    People in America are free to think and say what they like, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

    You can say you think black folks should all be lynched, and that's fine as far as it goes.  When you begin to incite others or act on those beliefs yourself, however, you cross the line.

    Perhaps what you mean to say is that we've got laws that limit the degree to which you can express your racist beliefs in society.

  •  There's an important distinction here (4+ / 0-)

    it's not only a right, but it's a fundamental right that people be allowed to be racist, to say racist things and to make personal decisions based on that racism.  Same goes for homophobia, misogyny and other types of bigotry.

    That does not mean they have a right to exclude people from participation in something that is open to the public.  When you choose to deliver a service to the general public, you reap certain benefits from that choice, but you are actively choosing to do this.  If you do not want to serve black people, do not run a business which is open to the public.  

    "Part of activism is simply being known as a human being" --Kyril

    by juliewolf on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:02:44 AM PDT

  •  Any civilized society (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soothsayer99

    would abhor racism and it certainly wouldn't be permitted to thrive in that society. You either advance as a society, or you wither and die on the vine.

    "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" - Carl Sagan

    by draa on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:06:54 AM PDT

  •  I disagree. People absolutely have the right to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin, RandomActsOfReason

    be racists. a Legal, government business does not.

    For instance, People can open their doors on Halloween to White and Chinese kids only while slamming the door shut on others and there isn't a damn thing the government can do about it.  

    Not saying that is what you should do, but if you want to be a horrible person the government cant touch you.

  •  if this was a perfect world. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock

    Stossel would be right.  A store could not allow blondes, and they'd lose money and go out of business.  This however not a perfect world, and the redheads would keep the store afloat.

  •  They have a right to be racist, but gay people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, esquimaux, greengemini, draa

    don't have a right to marry?

    Explain to me how this works?

    Gay people don't have a right to marry because most people don't believe that they should have that civil right?

    But despite the fact that most people don't believe that racists have a civil right to be publicly racist, nontheless racists should be allowed to have that right anyway---- why, exactly?

    [Head explodin]}

    •  See the Gays Would Be ACTING On the Feelings (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      concernedamerican

      that they have a 1st Amendment right to feel.

      But if they ACT on those feelings by marrying, they're violating Christians' 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and religion.

      You can look it up!!

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:00:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right (0+ / 0-)

      But we're trying to get away from the tyranny of the majority in both cases:

      1. So gay people will have the right to marry, regardless of what the majority thinks.
      1. And racists will have the right to their beliefs, which may inform their speech and actions (in most, but not  all, contexts), regardless of what the majority thinks.

      Civil protections are there for the vulnerable.  I look forward to the day when racists are a tiny, vulnerable minority.  And when they are, I will be all for protecting their rights (just as I am now).

      http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

      by claytonben on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:40:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two straw men and false equivalency (0+ / 0-)
      1. No one here who has stated that people have a right to be racist, has stated that gay people do not have a right to marry.
      1. Your claim that most people don't believe that racists have a civil right to be publicly racist desperately cries out for citation. However, even if it were empirically true, that would have no bearing on the Constitutionally protected right.

      Discrimination is not right or wrong depending upon how many people support it. Similarly, free speech is not permitted or prohibited depending upon how many people support it.

      Racists should be allowed to have the right to be racist because we have learned that the right to free speech itself can't discriminate. The moment you give the government the right to decide what advocacy arguments are permitted and what not permitted, we ALL lose our freedom.

      If your head is exploding at the basic premise of the 1st Amendment, that speech is protected even if it is speech we don't like, then you need to review your username.

      Discrimination is unlawful. Prejudice, while regrettable, is most certainly not.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:15:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stossel is a moron. (10+ / 0-)

    He has always been a moron, and shows no sign of having learned anything as he grows older.

    What is it with libertarians? They seem to think, in spite of all the evidence, that people will behave themselves without rules.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:26:17 AM PDT

  •  Oh my they have been forced, abused (6+ / 0-)

    in having to serve gays, blonds, furriners and African Americans

    I mean who wouldn't draw the line at blonds?

    Shit this should have been over 50 years ago.

    Just stay away from my body and my rights, and everything will be just fine. ~LaFeminista Mon May 17, 2010

    by LaFeminista on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:28:42 AM PDT

    •  Love your tagline (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaFeminista

      My motto is, "No uterus = your opinion on women's productive rights is invalid. Just shut up and take your viagra".

      "Make haste and shoot," the Major sneered;"a minute more I give; A minute more to kill your friend,if you yourself would live". "Jean Desprez", Robert Service

      by brainyblond on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:55:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's insane.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tbird, ahumbleopinion

    In Mr. Stossel's world, there would be not child labor laws, no workplace safety requirement laws, obviously no anti-discrimination laws, no sexual harassment in the workplace laws....hey if you wanna keep this job you gotta give a blowjob to the boss lady! It's MY business and I'll do whatever I want in my "private" business!

    And the invisible hand will all work it out.

    Hey Stossel, there's a place with none of these things in existence already, it's called Somalia. Go there, enjoy your Libertarian paradise and spare us from your comments in this socialist hell of America. Ok? GO!

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

    by michael1104 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:36:34 AM PDT

  •  An important point to make is quite a (6+ / 0-)

    few people were pressured into closing their doors to blacks by the klannish groups. Society was so focused on maintaining the status quo, they made this country into an apartheid system, institutionalizing the racism, making it harder to deconstruct.

    "Looks like we got ourselves a reader" - Bill Hicks

    by blueoregon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:37:05 AM PDT

    •  ooops, i forgot my point. A truly free market (0+ / 0-)

      system would allow business owners to open their doors to all people without pressure from the klan and others to maintain the status quo.

      "Looks like we got ourselves a reader" - Bill Hicks

      by blueoregon on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:38:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (8+ / 0-)

        Stossel forgets - or, more likely, simply ignores - the fact that cultural and social factors play a role in the economic transactions we make and don't make.  He argues that businesses simply weren't allowed to serve non-whites due to government laws.  But he can't imagine a case in which dominant social norms like racism work such that businesses in an area agree among themselves, formally or informally, to not serve non-whites and to punish those who attempt to do so.

        Procrastination: Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off now.

        by Linnaeus on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And no "free market" force would correct this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linnaeus, ahumbleopinion

          behavior, because the whites own the majority of the businesses and drive the majority of the purchases. Being a minority, blacks can't open enough businesses to counter the effects of discrimination, even if they individually had sufficient capital to do so.

          Even though our dream is not yet completed... we are not quitters... and we are not through. Ty'Sheoma Bethea

          by Nowhere Man on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:27:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Capitalism is racist (6+ / 0-)

    There. I am damned glad the truth is out. I'm not a fan of it either. Because it promotes racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and all other social "norms." That is what the basic tenets of free market Capitalism presuppose, particularly when taken to an extreme, as they are in our Society.

    Socialism is still a better economic solution in the quest for civil rights for all.

    Or just keeping wingnuts and asshats like Stossell off the teevee.

    "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." -- MLK Jr.

    by mahakali overdrive on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

    •  Even Though It's an Excellent Tool In the Promotn (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      condorcet

      of racism and other bigotries, I can't accept that it "is" inherently racist.

      Now, marketing comes a lot closer, because it's very inefficient to market to society as a whole. It's only easy to craft any particular marketing message and distribute it when it's confined to very like-minded people. I see the marketing system more than capitalism on the whole working to keep people divided by categories.

      This is a particular threat in our communication and information sphere, which we see playing out in politics where we've now got very large voting blocks whose most basic factuality foundations are irreconcilably incompatible.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:16:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The evidence of history refutes your assertion (0+ / 0-)

      that "Socialism is still a better economic solution (than capitalism) in the quest for civil rights for all."

      Neither capitalism nor socialism require or produce democracy, and socialist nations have a far poorer record on civil rights overall than capitalist nations do.

      In today's world, it is artificially simplistic to distinguish so completely and cleanly between the two, anyway. Every capitalist country today has some degree of socialism incorporate, and every socialist country today has some degree of capitalism incorporated.

      The real question is, what is the optimum balance. However, like many things, we are often impatient with notions like "balance", and are attracted to simplistic, Either/Or narratives.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:19:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also keep in mind (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      That capitalism - at least the kind of capitalism we have in the US, where the wealthy make obscene amounts of money and others struggle to get by - by its very nature, stokes divisions in our society, such as race, gender, and sexuality.  It has to so that it can keep people voting against their class interests.  For instance, they make people blame "illegal immigrants" for the good jobs being gone, not a set of economic policies designed to screw over the working class.

      It works depressingly well.

  •  Anyone who panders to racists, is a racist. (6+ / 0-)

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,  promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:41:15 AM PDT

  •  It's my understanding that my rights end (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightshine

    where other people's rights begin. That would mean that if I am a business owner, I do not, under any circumstances have a right to treat people in a racist manner.

    I didn't think it was that complicated.

    An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

    by rini6 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:47:32 AM PDT

    •  Should it be illegal (0+ / 0-)

      for eharmony not to allow gay couplings?  Should the boyscouts be outlawed, for their refusal to allow gay participants?

      These are private businesses.  

      Just curious on your opinion.

      http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Benjamin%20Gross berg&page=1

      by claytonben on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:45:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I could see the boy scouts being forced (0+ / 0-)

        to allow gay participants.  You cannot "outlaw" the boy scouts but imagine if they didn't allow african americans? I think that there would be lawsuits and they would have been forced to integrate.

        E harmony is on the edge. If facebook did not allow people on the site who unless they described themselves as "heterosexual", I think that would be something that could be legally challenged. Eharmony is big, but not a facebook or twitter. I do think that a small group of people on the internet would be allowed to discriminate, business of no business.
        l.

        An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.

        by rini6 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:35:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Embarrassing Argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin

    Everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter what it is, and to express it. When did that become controversial?

  •  I am thrilled the Paul's and Stossels are (8+ / 0-)

    speaking out and showing how backwards-thinking, history-denying, self-centered and myopic the libertarian philosophy is. I have been greatly concerned by young people in particular who held the mantle of libertarianism during the last cycle, believing it represented an anti-war, anti-establishment view and missing these fundamental points; libertarians are not in favor of the protection of human rights, they believe each man is an island (and I do mean man and not woman because they believe males are the "stronger sex" and women should subordinate), they do not believe it was in America's best interest to fight WW2 and defeat the Nazi's because the Germans had not come for our stuff and they believe in their stuff uber alles, and that's just the beginning... The highest ranking libertarian in our government to date was 'I didn't see it coming' trainwreck, Alan Greenspan and I think he gave us a pretty vivid demonstration of life under market rule. Hopefully all of this and more will dribble out so that  people won't think they're being counter-culture-cool by calling themselves 'libertarian.'

  •  Call it what you want, but cracker logic (8+ / 0-)

    provides the foundation, or to put it another way the underbelly, of this type of neoconfederate shite and always has.

    White slaveowners have always had the "right" to discriminate; poor whites, aping their "superiors" claim the same rights for themselves.

    They have the "right" because God made them white and therefore superior.

    In their own minds, of course.

    Now, they dress it up and call it Libertarianism, no offense to any actual liberals or others who consider themselves libertarian.

    Q: Why does Grover Norquist want to drown the government in a bathtub? A: So he can replace it.

    by Snarky McAngus on Sat May 22, 2010 at 08:58:44 AM PDT

  •  The real problem (3+ / 0-)

    Both Stossel and Rand Paul are racists, deep inside and they know it.

    •  The problem isn't a couple of (0+ / 0-)

      Blowhards are racist. The problem is that thirty percent or so of this country's adults think that they make "an excellent pt. "

      education, education, education!

      Which gets harder each time the Texas  school board revises textbooks to match the conservative need...and no one does anything to put a stop to the insanity.

      But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

      by Bill O Rights on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:37:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  HATE is insufficient. (0+ / 0-)

    Love is enduring. But compassion - with an elbow in the face - is most convincing.

    Thus far, Republicans think they are the only ones who can say no. They have not yet seen the whites of Democrats' eyes as we GOTV in 2010!

    They may even win a few reprehensible arguments and may even pass laws that offer poor cover for their corrupt paradigm - like AZ's Brewer dared to endorse.

    But she merely exploded the argument of corporate complicity and exposed their class war. The short term cure for Arizona is FBI raids leading specifically to employer arrests for felony, harboring illegal aliens in addition to nominal BILLION DOLLAR interstate boycotts.

    Enforcement is what they want. Enforcement is what they will get. The A$$h@les are leading with their chins! Stossel is a useful idiot. If they drive up the argument, AZ cops will revolt and join FBI raids looking for the terrorists they have taught us to fear so much.

    They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

    by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:15:47 AM PDT

    •  Your advocacy for violence is McCarthyesque (0+ / 0-)

      The answer to reprehensible speech is NOT "an elbow in the face", it is more, better speech.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:23:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's just a "figure of speech," (0+ / 0-)

        ...It's just like Palin's "Don't retreat: Reload." Or Darrell Issa'a veiled threat against Henry Waxman (when Waxman was investigating Blackwater). Some need to know that we will not be intimidated by unprincipled rhetoric or vituperation.

        I always practice compassion and empathy. But unlike a Buddhist monk, I will not practice self-immolation nor retreat from bullies. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either.

        This is not our chosen parlance - it is theirs. It's all they have left after 40 years of Reaganomics and supply-side Randian fraud.  

        They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

        by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:36:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  call it a "head slap." (0+ / 0-)

          They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

          by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:36:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I refuse to be governed by their parlance (0+ / 0-)

          YMMV. Peace.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:54:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I see your high principles - "free" speech etc (0+ / 0-)

            are debatable assets in directly confronting the class warfare to which we have become accustomed. You're right, of course, but Stossel should be condemned.

            Anyway, this 1st Amendment argument you raise is a typical straw man argument much abused by 'baggers so as to diustract ands waste time. (NeoLiberal claims for a useful center have shifted leftward since 2006.) And holding up the Constitution is played out, unless you really do believe that this President would conscience any infringement upon free speech or free guns.

            If you want to admit that class warfare is the real demon goal - and it has been so since Reagan - then we can talk about that.

            They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

            by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:36:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As hestal and several others here show, (0+ / 0-)

              and as hundreds of foaming-at-the-mouth commenters prove in my latest diary, it is anything but a "straw man" argument.

              Weakening support for the 1st Amendment is a bipartisan disease.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:24:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No it's not - it's your straw man! (0+ / 0-)

                I am not saying that Stossel doesn't have the right to say anything he wants to! It's irresponsible, it's misleading, it's hateful...but you're the one who seems to be too wiling to bar criticism based on 1st Amendment rights. I do think he needs a figurative 'head slap' and a symbolic 'smack down,' but you go too far in his defense.

                The risk to 1st Amendment-protected speech is a fearmongering mind game played all too well by 'baggers to dim fervent opposition with bully tactics - just like you're using on me!

                I'm sorry to repeat myself. Racism's really a dimension of class war and that is the heart of the issue, buried in all these weeds.

                They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

                by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:04:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You should look up the definition of "straw man" (0+ / 0-)

                  Here, let me help you: http://tinyurl.com/...

                  Now, for the rest of your comment:

                  I am not saying that Stossel doesn't have the right to say anything he wants to!

                  Kindly quote where I said that you were saying that, or retract your straw man.

                  you're the one who seems to be too wiling to bar criticism based on 1st Amendment rights.

                  Kindly quote where I ever suggested, or supported, barring criticism based on 1st Amendment rights. I can't even imagine how that would be logically possible: "because your right to speak is protected, you may not speak"? You're making no sense. Retract your straw man.

                  I do think he needs a figurative 'head slap' and a symbolic 'smack down,' but you go too far in his defense.

                  Kindly quote where I ever went any distance at all in defense of Stossel, let alone Stossel's arguments - or, retract your straw man.

                  The risk to 1st Amendment-protected speech is a fearmongering mind game played all too well by 'baggers to dim fervent opposition with bully tactics - just like you're using on me!

                  Kindly quote where I employed bully tactics or feamongering on you with the intent of endangering 1st Amendment-protected speech - or retract your straw man.

                  That is four straw men in a single comment of yours. You have yet to demonstrate a single straw man in any of my comments. Kindly retract your accusation of me erecting straw men - let alone the same straw man as Stosssel and Paul.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:29:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  McCarthy-esque is 'bagger rhetoric. (0+ / 0-)

        That's pretty insulting.

        They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

        by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:37:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Advocating violence as a way to (0+ / 0-)

          intimidate free speech is McCarthyesque. And, when you comment on the over the top personal insults that have been thrown my way in this diary - that I am a racist, a racist accommodator, and worse - then you will have credibility when you weigh in on what constitutes an insult.

          I characterized your argument, your speech, not you. Critical distinction lost on many here, who equate my support for free speech, with support for the contents of Stossel and Paul's speech.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 02:27:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't call you a racist at all. (0+ / 0-)

            I said you're using 'bagger rhetoric to shut me up. Your tactic's a lot worse IMO, and I don't buy your "equal danger of repression of free speech from the right as well as from the left" AT.ALL.

            This free speech argument you incessantly use proves it. You are trying to make ME the demon now!

            In a long email colloquy with the advertising manager of one of Glenn Beck's advertisers, I was advised to ignore Beck. The advertiser would probably switch to preferred placement and avoid Beck soon. He suggested that I just go on about my business in the same way as he and allow time to take its course....It did. I won.

            I suggest that right wing authoritarians are far, far more dangerous to our Constitutional rights than we are ever likely to be here on the left. Most people here seem to agree with me.

            They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

            by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:19:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Straw man, I did not say you called me racist (0+ / 0-)

              Read carefully:

              when you comment on the over the top personal insults that have been thrown my way in this diary - that I am a racist, a racist accommodator, and worse - then you will have credibility when you weigh in on what constitutes an insult.

              This free speech argument you incessantly use proves it. You are trying to make ME the demon now!

              Not at all. You claimed I insulted you. I substantiated my assertion that your comment was McCarthyesque in nature.

              You now continually erect straw men and falsely accuse me of all sorts of things, so at this point I am simply trying to get you to withdraw your false accusations and stop erecting straw men. We have yet to engage in any substantive conversation related to your initial comment or my initial response, because you insist on continuing to erect straw men and impugn my motives.

              That's your choice.

              I'm not sure what your anecdote re: Glenn Beck says about your initial comment regarding an elbow to the face being the appropriate response to speech you don't like. Perhaps you can elaborate.

              I suggest that right wing authoritarians are far, far more dangerous to our Constitutional rights than we are ever likely to be here on the left. Most people here seem to agree with me.

              1. I suggest it is not a contest, that we need to uphold free speech rights no matter who threatens them.
              1. Arguments from popularity are a logical fallacy.

              Here, let me refer you to another source on logical fallacies in general, since you seem to employ so many of them:

              The Nizkor Project page on Logical Fallacies

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 03:37:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Great post by Yglesias explains this just unmasks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lightshine

    the views of Rand Paul and those like him.

    Link:
    Cato institue vp for legal studies agrees with rand pauls original view civil rights act was unwarranted and unconstitutional
    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/...

  •  An employee of mine (5+ / 0-)

    is black. Recently she wanted to send a postal money order, and was told that they don't take postal money orders from "students" (she is a student, but she's gainfully employed and she's in her early seventies). The clerk tore up the money order right in front of her.
    Racism is alive and well.

  •  I understand the first amendment argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    but I totally disagree with it and, besides, Civil Rights laws are covered under the commerce clause and the equal protection clause of the constitution.

  •  Yep, keep defending racism. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe

    Bring this fever to a head.  Let people (like me) who are not intrinsically anti-Republican see where the GOP has gotten to.  Someday I would like again to be able to vote for a Republican, and everyone has to understand that the GOP has become the party of barking insanity.

    Rand Paul may yet do the GOP a favor: demonstrating where the line between rationally moderate conservatism and lunacy lies.  

    It lies to the left of the current GOP.

  •  "Why Grandma, what free markets you have!" (5+ / 0-)

    "The better to eat you with, my dear"

    Any atrocity and act of callous greed under the sun can be excused by the Free Market, like slavery, or modern wage slavery. Free market advocates can NOT be patriots or humanitarians as they advocate a system that undermines sovereignty and the rights of man.

    Of course Free market fetishists can find some way to justify racism! They can justify anything because there is a LOT of $ in doing so.

    Feh to the free market

    I work for PeanutButterPAC, join us and help fight for Progress!

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sat May 22, 2010 at 09:55:17 AM PDT

  •  Rand Paul's position... (0+ / 0-)

    ....is functionally racist, even if they swear up and down that it's not. Basically, anything that gives more rights to racists in order to discriminate is functionally racist. This is even with the most generous reading of his position, that he means nothing racist by it.

  •  very well done diary -- thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vyan, soothsayer99

    This whole diary is excellent, but I am especially appreciative of the section on running a business is a privilege granted by the public/society/government and therefore it must be run in accordance with the rules established by the government/society.

    This is such a critical point but it often gets lost in our public discourse.

    We need to challenge these free market fundamentalists with this point over and over.

    It's the same line of thinking that causes so many free market fundamentalists to rail against taxation, especially progressive taxation. Always amazes me how so many business people of all levels -- big business, small business, non-profit business leaders -- fail to recognize that their beloved profits/ability to function would dry up if they didn't exist in a society that has a functioning government, roads and bridges and transit to allow them and their workers to get to work, a water system and power system that doesn't function erratically, etc. All of these things are critical to their business running well and making profit -- but they ignore them and instead rail against the taxation and regulation that make it all possible.

    "The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." ~ Bruce Springsteen

    by abs0628 on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:42:41 AM PDT

  •  Private business vs private club (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rick Aucoin

    Private clubs can be racist, it's a private biz that's the problem.

    I have been to black barber shops that won't serve non black clients.

    Its just a problem. In restaurants and gas stations

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Sat May 22, 2010 at 10:54:21 AM PDT

  •  The corporate personhood meme strikes again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    La Gitane, canadian gal

    Right here is the part the where the Randian Alliance trips and falls head first into the wormhole – "Rights" belong to people, not Businesses.

    So once again, the idea of corporate personhood is the real issue here, isn't it? Does anybody else see a pattern here?

    If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)

    by brainwave on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:03:37 AM PDT

    •  Yep. And the libertarian meme (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brainwave

      of incentivize, not mandate, is getting very old too.  Yeah, right - the marketplace will put unethical businesses out of business.  The marketplace will magically make businesses do the right thing.

      Wrong.

      We've given them so many, too many chances and they don't do the right thing.  Ever.  And, they keep their bad behavior as much of a secret as possible so if the market were to decide, it couldn't because it doesn't know a goddam thing.

      Laws are the people's way of keeping the powerful in check.  If you don't see that and you are not a member of the Rich and Powerful then you're a plain old dumass.

      "Mediocrity cannot know excellence." -- Sherlock Holmes

      by La Gitane on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:41:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A point I've not seen made... (0+ / 0-)

    I suppose anyone shameless enough to do so is free to think of racism as a "right."  But Dr. Paul and others of his ilk seem to have missed the point that under the Jim Crow laws, there was no corresponding right not to be racist.    A business opting to integrate would would have ceased to operate as a business very quickly.  

    When you punch a lot of holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:20:01 AM PDT

  •  Willful ignorance of history abounds (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dixiedemocrat

    The libertarian argument that looks at the Civil Rights Act as a purely Constitutional question completely ignores all the economic damage that had been done under Jim Crow and all of the benefits which have accrued to the American South since. There would be no Disney World. Atlanta and Charlotte wouldn't be the commercial centers that they are today.  

    Equally, I'd hate the idea to develop that all things done during the period when white men ran this country are inherently flawed.

    I was struck by this thought when there was all the news coverage of the 40th anniversary of the Apollo moon landing. That was probably the last thing that we will ever accomplish as a nation which was done almost exclusively by white men.  

    I wonder if the way we look at the Apollo program will someday change because of it, in the same way that we acknowledge that Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners and Babe Ruth never had to hit against black pitchers. Will we say that if there had been more women and minority scientists, we'd never have fallen behind the Russians in the first place?

    Racism was and is a fact of American life and we can't change that.  We all just need to be honest about how we got here.  

  •  Stossel was born to a Jewish family (0+ / 0-)

    (not sure if he's still observant).

    Suppose he ended up in a car accident, and wound up in a hospital where they don't treat Jews? Free enterprise means shit when you're bleeding to death.

    Normal is a setting on a washing machine. -- escapee

    by Cali Scribe on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:31:13 AM PDT

    •  He would be proud to die for their right (0+ / 0-)

      to discriminate against him. So, basically -- a happy ending for everybody.

      It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves. -- Thomas Paine

      by teachme2night on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:23:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  perfect! (0+ / 0-)

    you hit the nail on the head here of this unbelievably twisted logic which is that racism doesn't stifle civil rights! legalization of equality does. what a turd this guy is.

    "You can make a profound intellectual statement just by basing your efforts on silliness." -- Donald Roller Wilson

    by canadian gal on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:34:30 AM PDT

  •  Well done, Vyan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dixiedemocrat, canadian gal

    You made the clear distinction between one's right to have prejudiced/racist thoughts and the government's rightful authority to prevent one from acting on those thoughts. Just as a private business has to follow rules left and right regarding just about every aspect of their conduct, a business also has to follow rules regarding civil rights. It's such a no-brainer as to be absurd.

    E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.

    by Ian Reifowitz on Sat May 22, 2010 at 11:37:50 AM PDT

  •  'No N****rs Allowed' ISNT freedom of association (0+ / 0-)

    How can people still be so gullible as to believe 'market forces' have anything to do with correcting unethical or uncivil or just plain evil behavior? This country has been a virtual lab experiment for the last 30 years testing that hypothesis. The outcome of which is we and our children and their children too, are totally screwed.
    I didnt always think Stossel was a fucking tin eared moron whose discourse never rises above the level of mouthing off about how 'those people' are ruining the country. In between bites of his shrimp cocktail. Just goes to show how wrong I can be.

  •  Private business (0+ / 0-)

    The claim is that private business has the right to discriminate against some segment of the taxpaying public.

    Having said that, I find I can't name even ONE private business.

    Taxpayers built the roads to them, the municipal water and sewerage, funded the telephone and electricity infrastructure, and paid for the policemen and firemen that protect them.

    Let anyone who wishes to follow this Randian course divest themselves of all public support, and then I'll listen to their argument.

  •  This is so wonderfully said- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dixiedemocrat

    let me quote it again (as a sorta bookmark):

    Racism and Bigotry are the prejudging of a person with out bothering to gather all the relevant facts individually. it's a short-cut. It's LAZINESS.  It's the conflation that if some Black people have been arrested in high numbers - they must be more generally "criminal".  That if they're unemployed they must be "Lazy". That since some women can't run as fast as some men, that they're generally "weaker", or that gay people are generally more promiscuous and predatory in their sexual appetites than straights.  It's acting as an armchair statistician without bothering to do any of the actual math. Certainly any particularly individual might fit into such a stereotypical view, they might "fit the profile", but the fact is that most people won't.  Most young black men, (around 70%) have NEVER been inside a jail, and never will be.  Lots of women, who keep in shape, can out run and out jump a man who doesn't.

    Bigotry is coming to a conclusion without having all the facts about the individual standing in front of you, and then arrogantly clinging onto that false impression in ignorance and denial of the factual reality.  Essentially, it's being a willfully ignorant asshole.  

    Again, I still don't think that's a "right" because although people may have a right to their opinion, but they aren't "entitled" to disregard facts out of convenience or sloppiness - nobody is "entitled to HATE" - it should be their responsibility to seek out the truth, not capitulate to lies and hatred.

    Couldn't have said it any better. Thank you for this diary.

    •  I agree with the sentiment, but not the statement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      toilpress

      It is every American citizen's right to be a willfully ignorant asshole. The reason for that right is that we figured out a long time ago that, if we give anyone the authority to decide who is a willfully ignorant asshole, and take away their rights, we are all in danger and our free society will not survive.

      Again, I still don't think that's a "right" because although people may have a right to their opinion, but they aren't "entitled" to disregard facts out of convenience or sloppiness - nobody is "entitled to HATE" - it should be their responsibility to seek out the truth, not capitulate to lies and hatred.

      There is no legal obligation not to be mistaken, not to be ignorant of the facts, or not to hate.

      If anything, the diarist and several others here are guilty of disregarding facts out of convenience of sloppiness- in this case, misstating the nature of 1st Amendment rights, and, in several comments, actually arguing that it is illegal to express what they define as "racist" opinions. So, using that logic, the diarist and those commenters should surrended to Homeland Security and, in the meantime, self-censor.

      Of course, the facts are that their errors, whether the result of convenience, sloppiness, the height of the Moon or what they ate for breakfast, are errors they are Constitutionally protected for expressing - just as idiot bigots like Rand and Stossel are protected - yes, they actually have the RIGHT to be wrong - by the US Constitution.

      You, I or anyone else, including the government, the Democratic Party, Dennis Kucinich, Noam Chomsky or Pat Robertson, don't get to decide who may or may not express an opinion, what opinions are permissible because they are not defined by whoever as "sloppy"
      or "convenient" or even "wrong".

      The failure to recognize this most basic of all basic democratic principles, this most important of Constitutionally protected rights, and this most fundamental progressive, liberal principle, by more than a few people here, is, frankly, stunning and hard to believe.

      Paul and Stossel are shmucks, their arguments suck, and their thinking is stuck - in the 15th century.

      AND, they not only have a right to be shmucks, suck, and be stuck - I will actually defend with every fiber of my being their right to not only be so, but say so.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:31:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rolling my eyes here.. (0+ / 0-)

        It is not about the 1st Amendment however much you'd like to frame it and be indignant about this supposed "omission" by everyone on this site.
        If the universe were entitled to chaos and didn't have to form galaxies because of some absolute 1st Amendment laws to behave contrary to the rules, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
        What we're trying to do here is to form some sort of a social order where there are other sets of rules beyond those written in the Constitution.
        And we all have obligation to that call it greater good of the nation, or a social order in more simple terms.
        Absolute freedom doesn't exist. Or it's chaos.

        •  Roll your eyes all you wish, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          toilpress

          that is an unnecessary editorial comment.

          If the universe were entitled to chaos and didn't have to form galaxies because of some absolute 1st Amendment laws to behave contrary to the rules, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

          I'm not sure what you are getting at here. It almost seems like you are responding to another commenter, or to some imaginary debater in your head. If you can quote anywhere that I suggested that the 1st Amendment is anything but a law created by the people, for the people, amendable by the people, and thus dependent upon our continued support and vigilance for its endurance, then please do so. Otherwise, I frankly don't see the relevance of this statement.

          I responded to a quote about "rights". "Rights" are a legal concept, guaranteed and protected by law, which is nothing more or less than the codification of social consensus.

          When commenters here argue that US law does not protect racist speech, then it most certainly is about the 1st Amendment, as that is the basis for the laws that protect speech, including racist speech.

          we all have obligation to that call it greater good of the nation, or a social order in more simple terms.

          That's a nice idealistic statement, but, in reality, what we all have an obligation to do is to obey the laws we have established through our elected representatives.

          Otherwise, if we just rely on good will and on scolding people when they do something wrong, we'd have what you call "chaos".

          Absolute freedom doesn't exist. Or it's chaos.

          Since I never suggested otherwise, that is a straw man.

          With respect, you haven't addressed a single one of the points I raised in my comment. In fact, you seem to be carrying on a different conversation entirely, one that is about you and someone you think you need to justify what you are talking about to.

          My point is pretty simple, I'm not sure why you are having so much trouble addressing it.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sun May 23, 2010 at 12:40:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have a problem addressing your point (0+ / 0-)

            at all. I have not because I don't see a point where we disagree really, nor anyone else on this site for that matter.
            Rachel Maddow invited mr. Rand Paul on her show precisely for the purpose of giving him a platform to exercise his First Amendment right to free speech.
            The same takes place here at dkos where we talk about the issues that Rand Paul believes such as giving private businesses the right to abridge the 1st Amendment. Isn't that ironic?

            We discuss the content, the issue itself, which is racism. Not whether one can talk about it, because this is what we do. We're saying racism is wrong on so many levels because it is destructive to society at large.

            In fact, you seem to be carrying on a different conversation entirely, one that is about you and someone you think you need to justify what you are talking about to.

            True.

  •  As someone who had the Klan burn crosses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RandomActsOfReason

    in her family's front lawn in the 60s, thank you, Vyan.  I saw the Rachel interview...I can't even believe we are having to HAVE this discussion!

    Libertarians, strike me on whole, in the best light, as idealists.  Hey, I believe in Utopia!  I like Unicorns, sunshine, happiness and moonbeams!  I'm also smart enough to know human nature will never be Utopian.  I'm a Democrat/Progressive, because I recognize the idiocies of human nature.  We are the party of nuanced thinking and moving the ball forward.  It's harder to come up with sound-bites, but, hey, I can sleep at night.

    "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Conner

    by Dixiedemocrat on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:14:57 PM PDT

  •  I ain't defending rascism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RandomActsOfReason
    But racists have every right to spew filth, just as flatearthers have the right to be deliberately ignorant, birthers have the right to live in an alternate reality where Kool-aid is a drug, and morons have the right to believe Rush tells the truth.

    We don't have to agree with what they say, but we have to acknowledge that they have the right to say it.

    You wanna be pissed?  Then be pissed at the failure of our education system that allows people to be so easily swayed and misled.

    Last Stossel is Jewish. First time a restaurant kicks him out for being a Jew you'll hear Stossel switch sides and saying "restaurateurs are Nazis...what happened to the idea of freedom and equality in America?"

    But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have laid my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. -- Yeats

    by Bill O Rights on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:25:47 PM PDT

  •  Racism is ignorant. (0+ / 0-)

    Racism is unevolved. Everybody wants to rule the world, but breaking it up by gender, color, religious preference, is just plain ignorance and unevolved behavior.  

    There are only 2 things I care about deeply as a progressive. 1.  That we, as a human species, survive climate change - and honeys, given the history of human behavior - to make it work, well, all of us globally are in for a bumpy ride.  STRAP IN.  2.  In order to survive all of the above, we as global citizens cannot afford Neanderthal thinking and division.  We are ALL in the same boat-there isn't any room for those who hold on to caveman thinking.  Given the history of the world, I expect the "isms" to get uglier and uglier as resources get smaller and smaller.  Given our current ecological circumstances, libertarian vs. democrat vs. republican vs. black vs. white vs. brown - all of those "I want me and my kind to be in charge" arguments are going to seem petty.  

    How do you fix the stupid?  We can't afford stupid.

    "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Conner

    by Dixiedemocrat on Sat May 22, 2010 at 12:43:34 PM PDT

  •  They want everything privatized, then what? (0+ / 0-)

    So it's ok to be racist if you're a private business. And public racism is still not ok in their book.  But they want to privatize everything, thus racism will be ok everywhere.  Schools, hospitals, etc etc.

    They put property and corporations above people, conservative libertarianism is the worst combination.

  •  Anyone who was around at the time (0+ / 0-)

    knows the flaw in the free-market "solution" to segregation.

    Sure, some southern whites people might have gone to an integrated establishment, but if they did, they themselves would have been marked as "nigger-lover" or whatever. Their businesses would have been boycotted, and they would have been shunned socially. This was the norm, you know, all during American history.

    At the same time, southern blacks who patronized integrated places of business faced similarly negative consequences, mostly from whites who disapproved, but even from some blacks, due to fear of retaliation and also to some degree due to "Stockholm syndrome"-style internalization of the existing system as being "respectable".

    In other words, there is an emotional layer to this that was much more powerful than free market logic as a force for the segregationist status quo. Who knows, maybe someday segregation would have just automagically melted away, but I doubt it, I really do. If anything substantial and positive was to take place in the lifetimes of people living in the 1960's (or in their children's or grandchildren's lifetimes), strong legal action at the federal level was required.

    Could the law or its implementation have been improved? I think so, but of course those improvements may well have been unobtainable in the contemporary political climate. In any case that's not what RandPaul or the libertarians/objectivists are talking about.

  •  It's "classism" and "class warfare." (0+ / 0-)

    Distractions like racism veil nothing.

    Class warfare - a continued subjugation of most all by the few - is their goal.

    Rand Paul's outrageous and stupid claims are only today's distractions and he'll recede now into his low-intelligence state-wide campaign.

    You can see class war in virtually everything Republican politicians say and do. At least Democratic electeds are a little ashamed and must use villain rotation or Blue Dog & Ben Nelson-style regionalist exceptionalism as an excuse for what a real leftist like me might claim is a total collapse of governance. But Democratic elitism is also prominent in their complicity and poor bottom-line results...thus far.

    But make no mistake that what President Obama and the Democratic majority has achieved in 16 months is monumental in the context of forty years of Reaganomics and supply-side fraud. GOTV 2010!

    They only call it class war when we fight back! h/t: buhdydharma

    by ezdidit on Sat May 22, 2010 at 01:20:47 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, elishastephens, Ed in Montana, JWC, citizen k, Chi, ogre, AaronInSanDiego, mem from somerville, Shockwave, simaramis, akeitz, lawnorder, Matilda, mataliandy, Jerome a Paris, sardonyx, TheMomCat, hestal, missLotus, 88kathy, sponson, wonkydonkey, linnie, DaleA, ask, boadicea, PBnJ, Glic, vmibran, roses, puck nc, sngmama, splashy, Cedwyn, antirove, abs0628, Melanchthon, psnyder, danthrax, pat bunny, MA Liberal, brainwave, jaywillie, yet another liberal, Bulldawg, hoplite9, ohiolibrarian, Anna Luc, frostieb, lyvwyr101, TexMex, Julie Gulden, rapala, ManOnTheBench, Jeffersonian Democrat, Heiuan, mjd in florida, democracy inaction, PBen, Luetta, panicbean, basquebob, Dobber, thefos, Laurence Lewis, boofdah, eru, owlbear1, Savvy813, wiscmass, reddbierd, Nowhere Man, third Party please, esquimaux, irishwitch, tarheelblue, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, liberalconservative, kestrel9000, smokeymonkey, buhdydharma, carolita, luckydog, sailmaker, blueoasis, Blue Wind, MJ via Chicago, Lashe, philipmerrill, bleeding heart, ER Doc, middleagedhousewife, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, means are the ends, blueoregon, Ian Reifowitz, Hedwig, Grannus, pale cold, One Pissed Off Liberal, lightfoot, Cat Whisperer, dmh44, possum, gloriana, ezdidit, davehouck, mouser68, jayden, vbdietz, Moderation, pioneer111, Got a Grip, leonard145b, JML9999, spearfish, sable, rogerdaddy, mconvente, ScottyUrb, rikyrah, Involuntary Exile, elwior, binkaroni, pamelabrown, Cassandra Waites, smartdemmg, o the umanity, Zulia, A Man Called Gloom, dmhlt 66, David Futurama, statsone, LaFeminista, satanicpanic, Boycott for Peace, juca, CanyonWren, Tara the Antisocial Social Worker, velvet blasphemy, jennylind, CamillesDad1, Fixed Point Theorem, mississippi boatrat, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, zizi, MKSinSA, TheOpinionGuy, ZilV, aj2k, uno beagle, Corneliusmingus, sanglug, Denise Oliver Velez, ArthurPoet, mahakali overdrive, chrisblask, Livvy5, Adept2u, 3O3, LookingUp, Nalepoc, marabout40, amk for obama, KentuckyKat, leftist vegetarian patriot, BonnieSchlitz, Mercurio, calichristi, sfkat, gulfgal98, elginblt, NYWheeler, Funkygal, abrauer, DrTerwilliker, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, dwayne, fiercefilms, stevenaxelrod, pdxcharlie, HylasBrook, ssldenver, slice, Colorado is the Shiznit, mama jo, Lost Left Coaster, rationalcauses, ems97007, nicethugbert, Dixiedemocrat, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, Olympia, coachjdc, soothsayer99, KelleyRN2, Haf2Read, marleycat, Element 61, BarackStarObama, Vtdblue, mali muso, MinistryOfTruth, stevie avebury, siduri, lincoln deschain, SocialPunk, canadian gal, Chitown Kev, Georgianna Darcy, Dom9000, TX Dem 50, lightshine, Patric Juillet, ridemybike, worldforallpeopleorg, KiB, Flying Goat, OHknighty, oblios arrow, Aji, We Won, toilpress, J Brunner Fan, AnnieR, draa

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site