[MD] An Observation From An Outsider

[Arlo Bensinger]

[MK]
We need these ideas out in the open. We should punish acts and not 
thoughts and ideas.

[Arlo]
Mostly, yes. Sometimes, no. In general I have no problem with the KKK 
(for example) holding a rally on public grounds. But when they hang a 
negro in effigy, when they cross the line from disseminating their 
ideas to actively inciting the crowd to commit violence against 
blacks or jews, then we must make a "pre-emptive strike" (to use a 
Bush term). Admittedly, this is never easy to define exactly, but I 
think citizens of country should not be forced to live in a state of 
fear because the KKK wants to say it is "free speech" to instigate 
violence against them.

Let's take the anti-Jew posters, where Jews were depicted as rats, 
that were posted across Germany in the years leading up to the 
Holocaust. From a pure "free speech" position, this would be 
perfectly fine, the posters aren't committing physical violence 
merely expressing "an idea". But don't you think this (as one part of 
a campaign of dehumanization) had an impact on violence that was soon 
going to hit the Jewish community full-force?

Or take, in another direction, the Anarchist's Cookbook, a book that 
describes in building bombs and techniques for committing mass 
violence in a "Terrorism for Dummies" sort of walk-through. The book 
is just "ideas". But do you want it in the hands of every angry dude 
out there? I'm sure you have a crazy dude in your town, someone who 
is mostly harmless but on the edge. Do you want him to have a book 
that tells his exactly how to build a bomb that could destroy your 
office building, or your child's school? At present, as far as I 
know, the book is available but regulated (sort of like Grain Alcohol 
is in Pennsylvania). And I think that is okay.

So the way I see it, there is a line that precedes "acts" on which 
society has every right to intervene. The nature of this intervention 
must consider the specifics, and will likely be nuanced to the 
context at hand, finding a balance between the free exchanges of 
ideas and the instigating violence against other citizens (or people).

[MK]
Would you find Geert Wilders guilty?

[Arlo]
Personally, no. Although I do find some of his words dangerously 
close to a call for violence against Muslims. If he wants to 
criticize or speak out against a theology, that is his right, if it 
involves demonizing or manipulating fear to incite others to commit 
acts of violence against innocent people, that's then a different 
game. In the same vein, I think Muslims have a right to speak out 
against Western ideologies they oppose, but manipulating fear to 
incite others to violence should summarily be rejected. Again, these 
are not easy lines to draw, and as we err in caution or inaction 
we'll get a better view of where that line should be.

Interestingly, I read on Wikipedia here, Wilders is calling for the 
Koran to be outlawed. And he supports the banning of Mein Kampf. 
Presumably because he feels these ideas "incite violence".