George Will on David Irving
George Will always deserves reading--his thought is honest, and his writing is clear and thoughtful. This piece, from yesterday's Washington Post, is no exception. Will shows the folly of Europe's laws banning Holocaust denial--as he says in the opening line, "In some recess of David Irving's reptile brain, he knows that his indefensible imprisonment is helping his side."
Will takes his sentiments to their logical conclusion, arguing against any limitations on speech, including--his pet issue--campaign finance laws. He also objects to the category of hate crimes, which draws its justification from the same well.
I happen to agree with most of Will's column (as, to my surprise, I frequently do; would that all conservatives were as seemingly honest and wrote as clearly). Though I would open up the question on hate crimes: Doesn't the motivation for hate crimes--to give the less-powerful ammunition against the more-powerful (think lynchings in the South)--stem from a similar place as the victims' rights movement?
Will's point is that simply enforcing our laws equitably is what ensures the greatest liberty for the greatest number. True. So we shouldn't be making any special provisions for the less powerful (minorities--or victims). I want to believe that such an approach works. But Will assumes perfect efficiency the administration of the law, something our history does not reflect. In the words of Colin Powell, "Power corrupts, and absolute power is pretty neat."
The effect of hate crime, or victims rights, or Holocaust denial legislation is to move public sentiment--to carry out crimes is bad enough, to do so with these narratives becomes worse. But to twist legitimate power according to these narratives is also bad (see "Wallace, George"). I agree with Will that criminal legislation is not the way to educate; yet our law codes do necessarily reflect our social values. The question for George Will, and all of us who value freedom of speech above nearly everything else, is: How do we educate the public towards tolerance, respect, a liberal ideals (small L) in ways that don't involve government coercion?
Will takes his sentiments to their logical conclusion, arguing against any limitations on speech, including--his pet issue--campaign finance laws. He also objects to the category of hate crimes, which draws its justification from the same well.
I happen to agree with most of Will's column (as, to my surprise, I frequently do; would that all conservatives were as seemingly honest and wrote as clearly). Though I would open up the question on hate crimes: Doesn't the motivation for hate crimes--to give the less-powerful ammunition against the more-powerful (think lynchings in the South)--stem from a similar place as the victims' rights movement?
Will's point is that simply enforcing our laws equitably is what ensures the greatest liberty for the greatest number. True. So we shouldn't be making any special provisions for the less powerful (minorities--or victims). I want to believe that such an approach works. But Will assumes perfect efficiency the administration of the law, something our history does not reflect. In the words of Colin Powell, "Power corrupts, and absolute power is pretty neat."
The effect of hate crime, or victims rights, or Holocaust denial legislation is to move public sentiment--to carry out crimes is bad enough, to do so with these narratives becomes worse. But to twist legitimate power according to these narratives is also bad (see "Wallace, George"). I agree with Will that criminal legislation is not the way to educate; yet our law codes do necessarily reflect our social values. The question for George Will, and all of us who value freedom of speech above nearly everything else, is: How do we educate the public towards tolerance, respect, a liberal ideals (small L) in ways that don't involve government coercion?
posted by Rabbi Josh Feigelson | 12:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home