

   >Bull shit. There is no reason in the world why we can't say that
   >taking views analogous to the KKK's or some such organization is
   >wrong. There is no reason why some morality may not be legislated. As
   >it is we do not allow theft, or murder, or rape. Why should we allow
   >hateful sppech whose only purpose is to stir anger and violence.
   >Harry.

   I think the answer to Mr. Mayamsky's question can be found in the
	 		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(Mr. Mamaysky's)
   first amendment to the US Constitution.

	   Amendment I                                           (1791)

	   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	   religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
	   right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
	   the government for a redress of grievances.

   Steve

I do not say that freedom of speech should be banned. Far from it.
I am merely suggesting that there are certain things which can be
universally agreed to be morally incorrect. There are not many such
things. But there are some. As an example:

(1) murder is morally incorrect

(2) the idea that one group of people is somehow racially inferior to
another is morally incorrect

etc.

The point is that any action which serves to promote a morally
incorrect action should be forbidden. This implies that no one has the
right to say that an innocent person should be murdered. Regardless of
freedom of speech, I may not stand on a street corner and advocate the
murder of innocent people. The reason for this is that murder is a
morally incorrect action.

In the same way, since bigotry is morally incorrect in the narrow
definition which we have given it, (2), I, nor any one else, has the
right to stand on a street corner and promote bigotry. Such an
enforcement does in no way deny any one their rights as guaranteed by
the first amendment. It merely ensures that no person may be the
target of an attempt to deny him a fundamental moral right, such as
the right to not be murdered, and the right not to be discriminated
against.

I believe, Mr. Berson, that to blindly accept the constitution is a
terrific mistake. We must cinstantly question the constitution and
interpret it in a way befitting the society in which we live. Anything
short of such an effort would render us little more than trained
monkeys, who are able to merely repeat what they have heard without
paying the slightest bit of attention to the intent of the document in
question.

Would you disagree, Mr.Berson?