• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending speech rights for the far right

Wallach

Member
It's really disheartening to see so many abandon the concept of free speech. Free speech has to include offensive speech, or you're inviting the government to make determinations about what is acceptable and the government cannot be trusted to do that.

The law already does this. Unless you think you could not be arrested for making serious threats against someone else using only your words.

If you don't think Nazi speech is a threat to be taken that seriously after watching one of them drive a car into a crowd, I dunno what to tell you. Their speech threatens the worst forms of violence against the majority of people on the planet. That's actually all it really exists to do. It's incompatible with any defensible form of human society.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Threats of violence and language that incites violence already fall outside the protections of "free speech," so I'm not sure what additional limitations we're discussing...?

Well, people are still marching around chanting "jews will not replace us" and giving speeches about ethnic cleansing, so it's clearly not working.
 
That comic is an oversimplification of society. I don't agree with that comic. It jumps quite a few steps. You can't say because Hitler happened now we have to do this. How does the intolerant end up destroying the tolerant in a society with sound, just law and a fair application of the law?

Who gets to decide what is within the boundaries to be tolerated? Are we going to start punching and killing Muslims, Baptists, Amish, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, and Atheists? Who will be considered intolerant and what is to be done with them?

Given your Canadian username, I'm curious what you think of Canadian Hate Speech laws.

Criminal Code of Canada said:
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda.[3] "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."

Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."

Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.

I understand the troublesome nature of infringing on free speech to protect free speech, but the other argument is that there are also forms of speech that simply shouldn't be fostered in a free and tolerant society.

There are sensible ways to do this.
 
It starts and ends with those who believe in ethnic cleansing. Pretty clear cut imo.



Is Germany living in some dystopian censored society?

And what do you propose to do with all those people who believe in ethnic cleansing?

A court of law, backed by a law that punishes inciting to hatred or violence against protected classes.

You can hate the idea all you want but the process is pretty straightforward, it doesn't require punching or whatever fantasy you were drowning in there.

Why would you have a law punishing people inciting hatred and violence against protected classes? What does that accomplish exactly?

So is the slippery slope argument a new moderate talking point?

It's all over GAF today and I can't figure out where it's coming from.

No, it isn't new at all. Maybe you should read up on the history of free speech. We're standing on the shoulders of giants who fought for free speech over several decades in the US. To those who want to throw it all away now is the equivalent of pissing on all their hard work of dozens of lawyers who fought for our rights.
 

Keri

Member
"extraordinarily politically divided"

America is dealing with grappling with it's existence as a white male supremacist structure. Say that shit for what it is. Black political expression will continue to get marginalized regardless of how our country treats Nazis.

I don't think you realize the risks. Black political expression is currently marginalized, but it's not criminal. In a world without the protections of free speech, it can be criminalized.
 

faisal233

Member
Did you miss every single BLM protest that was met with riot gear, chemical weapons, and tanks????

You're operating under the assumption that black political expression is not currently being marginalized and hasn't been marginalized since we fucking got here?
Here is one of the first Google searches.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article88723877.html

600 protested in Florida, ended without any issues with the police...
 

Deepwater

Member
Prior to resurgence of right wing nationalism, the left had the clarity to recognize that foreign terrorism had caused the right wing to compromise and abandon morals- indirectly handing terrorists a victory- via things like their increased desire to go to war in the middle east, the patriot act, profiling, travel bans, etc. Domestic terrorism, which is what the threats of today are, is doing the same thing to the left right now. How do you criticize the encroachment on privacy Bush's actions had- which were done in the name of public safety- and support the idea of restricting speech in the name of public safety?

Saying the ACLU shouldn't defend white supremacists is not the same as saying they shouldn't have right to counsel or fair trial.

Some people may be arguing that, but I do not believe that is the predominant voice in this thread.
 

Karkador

Banned
I feel like SOMETHING should be done, nevertheless.

It's called, getting out there and counter protesting.


Then there's straight up "<X group> NEEDS TO DIE" which is probably a safe type of speech to prohibit a rally around.

You mean the Westboro Baptist Church? They won their Supreme Court case a few years ago. We cant give up something as important as the first amendment rights because a small group of fuckheads don't want to shut up.
 
So is the slippery slope argument a new moderate talking point?

It's all over GAF today and I can't figure out where it's coming from.

"But BLM will then be targeted next as hate speech and then what huh? You want black people to go to jail for standing up for themselves."


youth.jpg
 
Threats of violence and language that incites violence already fall outside the protections of "free speech," so I'm not sure what additional limitations we're discussing...?

No, that's precisely my point. Nazi speech can already be largely limited by having them fall into categories not protected by free speech.

So there's no point in defending their freedom of speech because it should be prohibited. And it should be prohibited under things that are already not protected under the law.

Hence some people having an issue with ACLU defending them.
 

traveler

Not Wario
Saying the ACLU shouldn't defend white supremacists is not the same as saying they shouldn't have right to counsel or fair trial.

Some people may be arguing that, but I do not believe that is the predominant voice in this thread.

And that is totally fair. You want to argue one group with limited resources think more critically about where they put those resources, I'm totally onboard. No problem there whatsoever.

"But BLM will then be targeted next as hate speech and then what huh? You want black people to go to jail for standing up for themselves."


youth.jpg

Half the country already believes Antifa and BLM uses their speech to incite violence. This happens to be the half of the country with control of the government. It is not a slippery slope to say that the current party in best position to abuse power already making the exact same sort of statements about left wing groups as we are about Nazis would utilize the same line of attack. It is inevitable.
 

besada

Banned
Its futile. I have made this argument over and over and over on this board and is met with deaf ears. Only emotion is prevailing right now. Thank gawd America has the First Amendment that specifically is immovable due to the emotional swells of the populace.

Once you start branding any speech (including hate) as hate speech, its only a matter of time before the pendulum swings to one side and starts labeling ANY speech against them as hate speech, then the other way...and so on and so forth.

Trump and republicans would love...effing LOVE to say BLM, ANTIFA, whatever is hate speech and thus outlaw it. What stops them? First Amendment.

The first amendment isn't sacrosanct, and never has been. Absolutist positions, like yours, ignore the long history of the government deciding what types of speech are protected and what types aren't:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Plagiarism of copyrighted material

These are all things the courts have decided are not protected speech. In each case, the decision rested on looking at the harm done by the speech compared by the harm done in restricting it. So unless you're arguing in favor of Perjury, Blackmail, and Child Pornography, you've already accepted that speech can and must be curbed.

The real question is whether what white supremacists are doing creates enough of a danger to society that it should be unprotected. People who hold to the idea that speech is sacrosanct in America aren't actually having a real conversation. They're living in a fantasy land that has never existed.
 
If all you're after is a negative peace in a country with no hate speech laws and where existing laws are applied unevenly and unfairly then cool, ignore the black posters.

Enjoy your future.
 
1. Stand up for everyone's rights, including the Far Right.
2. Far Right uses its speech to incite people to hate.
3. The hate spreads and gets a hateful man elected President.
4. The hateful President pushes more hate speech and gets hateful men and women to take control of Congress, the Supreme Court and the Governnorships of the country.
5. The hateful majority are tired of the media and the minority Left attacking them all the time, so they change the laws to limit their free speech.

That's how this plays out if you blindly enforce blanket laws to protect those that would seek to undo those freedoms.


BTW - we're looking at #4 right now.
 
It's really disheartening to see so many abandon the concept of free speech. Free speech has to include offensive speech, or you're inviting the government to make determinations about what is acceptable and the government cannot be trusted to do that.

Maybe US Governments but don't act like this is universally true
 

Deepwater

Member
I don't think you realize the risks. Black political expression is currently marginalized, but it's not criminal. In a world without the protections of free speech, it can be criminalized.

Black political expression is criminal because there are BLM activists in jail at this current moment who didn't do a damn thing.
 

Slayven

Member
If all you're after is a negative peace in a country with no hate speech laws and where existing laws are applied unevenly and unfairly then cool, ignore the black posters.

Enjoy your future.

Claims to be helping BLM by fighting for people's right to call them niggers.

Sounds like America. Black people can't win for losing

With Allies like that who needs the Klan?
 
The first amendment isn't sacrosanct, and never has been. Absolutist positions, like yours, ignore the long history of the government deciding what types of speech are protected and what types aren't:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Plagiarism of copyrighted material

These are all things the courts have decided are not protected speech. In each case, the decision rested on looking at the harm done by the speech compared by the harm done in restricting it. So unless you're arguing in favor of Perjury, Blackmail, and Child Pornography, you've already accepted that speech can and must be curbed.

The real question is whether what white supremacists are doing creates enough of a danger to society that it should be unprotected. People who hold to the idea that speech is sacrosanct in America aren't actually having a real conversation. They're living in a fantasy land that has never existed.

Thanks for this.
 
Actually you can't

I think what they decided is a fair compromise, though

The "Free speech' for nazis and white supremacists is comprised of the dehumanization of others.

So no. They don't get the right to free speech. This is the type of shit that gets you oppressed.
 

Keri

Member
No, that's precisely my point. Nazi speech can already be largely limited by having them fall into categories not protected by free speech.

So there's no point in defending their freedom of speech because it should be prohibited. And it should be prohibited under things that are already not protected under the law.

Hence some people having an issue with ACLU defending them.

To be prohibited now, it has to be a specific threat or incite imminent lawless action. I'm not sure what the entirety of "Nazi speech" is, but I doubt that applies to all of it. You'd have to significantly broaden what it means to "incite lawless action," for all "Nazi speech" to be banned by virtue of being "Nazi speech," and once you start to broaden this meaning, its inevitable that other groups will be banned as well.

Maybe US Governments but don't act like this is universally true

I was speaking specifically of the United States Government.
 
Half the country already believes Antifa and BLM uses their speech to incite violence. This happens to be the half of the country with control of the government. It is not a slippery slope to say that the current party in best position to abuse power already making the exact same sort of statements about left wing groups as we are about Nazis would utilize the same line of attack. It is inevitable.


And?

As a minority I do not see why I should quiver at the thought of a government trying to silence and abuse its powers over me WHEN IT ALREADY DOES.

So I'm going to fight now by advocating for the restriction of hate speech and I will fight then if the government then argues that minorities wanting equal rights is hate speech as well.

You know why? Because minorities have done this song and dance before.

130823151139-03-color-march-on-washington-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
 

Deepwater

Member
I believe it is you that claimed that every single BLM protest has been met by police.

No, I said did you miss every single BLM protest met with militarized police. As in, did you miss the vast amount of examples that are contrary to your point. But I'm not here to argue semantics. That is what I meant
 
The free speech thing isn't even a slippery slope. It's the edge of a cliff. You take away the speech of Nazis, there is no question that it will be used against you at some point in your lifetime.
 
Tying it to marching with fire arms was really smart.

It gives them an out so they can appear to be upholding absolute free speech while allowing them to deflect blame when the Nazis get violent, yes.

Nazism is an inherently violent ideology so everyone understands that violence is inevitable and yet

The free speech thing isn't even a slippery slope. It's the edge of a cliff. You take away the speech of Nazis, there is no question that it will be used against you at some point in your lifetime.

I feel like these arguments hinge on people refusing to think for themselves. If you ask almost anyone they'll agree that Nazism is terrible but if you link it to free speech some people will second guess themselves.

If you take it as a given that white supremacy will always win in America then yeah, I guess clamping down on hate speech will later lead to clamping down on everyone.
 
Prior to resurgence of right wing nationalism, the left had the clarity to recognize that foreign terrorism had caused the right wing to compromise and abandon morals- indirectly handing terrorists a victory- via things like their increased desire to go to war in the middle east, the patriot act, profiling, travel bans, etc. Domestic terrorism, which is what the threats of today are, is doing the same thing to the left right now. How do you criticize the encroachment on privacy Bush's actions had- which were done in the name of public safety- and support the idea of restricting speech in the name of public safety?



This is pretty much verbatim the type of right wing excuse I heard to defend the patriot act. Comfort and moral high ground don't matter in the fact of saving lives.

Principles cost lives; you don't throw away principles once upholding them hurts. It was expected that they would hurt.

This is hyperbolic given that many countries have hate speech laws and consider that part of their principles not throwing them away
 

Slayven

Member
And?

As a minority I do not see why I should quiver at the thought of a government trying to silence and abuse its powers over me WHEN IT ALREADY DOES.

So I'm going to fight now by advocating for the restriction of hate speech and I will fight then if the government then argues that minorities wanting equal rights is hate speech as well.

You know why? Because minorities have done this song and dance before.

130823151139-03-color-march-on-washington-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

Exactly the idea and execution of America's laws is white privilege incarnate
 
To be prohibited now, it has to be a specific threat or incite imminent lawless action. I'm not sure what the entirety of "Nazi speech" is, but I doubt that applies to all of it. You'd have to significantly broaden what it means to "incite lawless action," for all "Nazi speech" to be banned by virtue of being "Nazi speech," and once you start to broaden this meaning, its inevitable that other groups will be banned as well.



I was speaking specifically of the United States Government.

We are in a topic, centered around the ACLU and about a rally that did turn violent and where people were armed. I'm sure from that context you can infer that the subject matter of the speech we are discussing wasn't as broad as your making it out to be to make a point about "Nazi speech" in general.

It seems you understand perfectly well what I'm actually saying though and so unless you have a disagreement with that, I'm not sure what to reply to.
 
I just think the idea that cracking down on hate speech would prevent a man straight up murdering someone- which is already illegal- in SC is insane.
Ultimately, yeah. The murder was one guy, radicalized online, who got in a car and drove it into a crowd of people. It happened at the rally, but it could have happened anywhere. Cracking down on nazi rallies won't stop it from happening again.

The more relevant shit is the mob violence, beatings, rioting, terrorizing the city and trapping people in synagogues for hours while they have nazi slogans shouted at them, etc. And it sounds totally reasonable to not defend firearms and especially open carry of rifles in what's bound to be a heated environment because they are, you know, nazis.
 

Deepwater

Member
The free speech thing isn't even a slippery slope. It's the edge of a cliff. You take away the speech of Nazis, there is no question that it will be used against you at some point in your lifetime.

Again, is Germany susceptible to this since they censor Nazi speech and expression?
 

traveler

Not Wario
How do you guys intend to criticize the next right wing government that pulls a stunt like the Patriot Act when we've shown that the Left is just as comfortable betraying values in the name of safety? Maybe this is a discussion for another thread, but I feel like we're missing a pretty glaring hypocrisy.

And?

As a minority I do not see why I should quiver at the thought of a government trying to silence and abuse its powers over me WHEN IT ALREADY DOES.

So I'm going to fight now by advocating for the restriction of hate speech and I will fight then if the government then argues that minorities wanting equal rights is hate speech as well.

You know why? Because minorities have done this song and dance before.

130823151139-03-color-march-on-washington-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

That the government already does does not mean it cannot be worse. You don't think the right having the ability to actually label BLM and Antifa's very speech illegal will result in a worse situation? Bad things are already happening to minorities doesn't mean we've hit the bottom of the barrel yet.
 
No, it isn't new at all. Maybe you should read up on the history of free speech. We're standing on the shoulders of giants who fought for free speech over several decades in the US. To those who want to throw it all away now is the equivalent of pissing on all their hard work of dozens of lawyers who fought for our rights.

Oh get of your exceptionally high horse. Countries far more free than y'all have passed hate speech laws without pissing on anyone's hardwork.

You act like you're constitution and whatnot are so superior based on romanticism.

It's one thing to argue you're so uniquely fucked that hate speech laws won't work. It's another to act like you're uniquely great because you let Nazis march freely and any attempt to change that is pissing on legacy
 

Keri

Member
Black political expression is criminal because there are BLM activists in jail at this current moment who didn't do a damn thing.

I can't argue with you that things now are great. They obviously aren't. But I think you're underestimating how much worse it could get, if first amendment rights start to erode. It's exactly because minority expression is already targeted and marginalized, that we can anticipate they will be further targeted. In a world where "hate speech" is deemed to fall outside the protection of the first amendment, the speech of all organizations and groups can come under attack as being "hate speech." Then all activists engaged in that speech can potentially be jailed.

We are in a topic, centered around the ACLU and about a rally that did turn violent and where people were armed. I'm sure from that context you can infer that the subject matter of the speech we are discussing wasn't as broad as your making it out to be to make a point about "Nazi seech in general.

It seems you understand perfectly well what I'm actually saying though and so unless you have a disagreement with that, I'm not sure what to reply to.

Apparently I don't understand you. I referenced "Nazi speech" because that's the phrase you specifically used, but you seem to be complaining that I'm now speaking too generally?
 
Again, is Germany susceptible to this since they censor Nazi speech and expression?

Right

Germany is a functioning society

It has been for the past 60 years

They have censored and suppressed the speech rights of Nazis

The way people talk, it's as if Germany is this dystopia where nobody has rights. If the people who talk about 'remove the rights of nazis and you too will lose rights' had any semblance of truth to what they say, Germany would be some regime where nobody has free speech

and yet

Germany manages to live on despite those poor, censored nazis.
 
How do you guys intend to criticize the next right wing government that pulls a stunt like the Patriot Act when we've shown that the Left is just as comfortable betraying values in the name of safety? Maybe this is a discussion for another thread, but I feel like we're missing a pretty glaring hypocrisy.



That the government already does does not mean it cannot be worse. You don't think the right having the ability to actually label BLM and Antifa's very speech illegal will result in a worse situation? Bad things are already happening to minorities doesn't mean we've hit the bottom of the barrel yet.

Tbh the position you're taking is only possible with some real white privilege.

You can continue to ignore me if you like though
 
That the government already does does not mean it cannot be worse. You don't think the right having the ability to actually label BLM and Antifa's very speech illegal will result in a worse situation? Bad things are already happening to minorities doesn't mean we've hit the bottom of the barrel yet.

LMFAO

LMFAO

Did you just argue that I should be against hate speech be regulated because things can be worse for minorities?

When the same speech I want restricted is calling for minorities to be exterminated and removed?
 

Unbounded

Member
"To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask — where do you draw the line?"

Dumb logic is dumb.

You draw the line at the murderous people who want to destroy the things and people you stand for.

DHbvA72XcAA7ZLN.jpg

Saving this. It actually helped me reconcile the bits that were bothering me. Thanks!
 

traveler

Not Wario
Tbh the position you're taking is only possible with some real white privilege.

You can continue to ignore me if you like though

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you arguing that if I or my class were in danger, I would step up and advocate for anything necessary to protect them?
 

Deepwater

Member
I can't argue with you that things now are great. They obviously aren't. But I think you're underestimating how much worse it could get, if first amendment rights start to erode. It's exactly because minority expression is already targeted and marginalized, that we can anticipate they will be further targeted. In a world where "hate speech" is deemed to fall outside the protection of the first amendment, the speech of all organizations and groups can come under attack as being "hate speech." Then all activists engaged in that speech can potentially be jailed.

Other countries censor hate speech and do just fine
 
It protects said classes, if only by not normalizing and propagating hateful messages.

Ok, so it isn't only about protecting people from violence you want to go several steps further and censor speech that you consider hateful messages. Thanks for sliding on the slippery slope for me.

I would treat them the same way we treat radical Islamic terrorists.

You want to send out drones attacking US cities. Gaf I hope you aren't living with your racist relatives because Nafai here wants to blow them up which might include you in the process.
 

Toxi

Banned
Ultimately, yeah. The murder was one guy, radicalized online, who got in a car and drove it into a crowd of people. It happened at the rally, but it could have happened anywhere. Cracking down on nazi rallies won't stop it from happening again.

The more relevant shit is the mob violence, beatings, rioting, terrorizing the city and trapping people in synagogues for hours while they have nazi slogans shouted at them, etc. And it sounds totally reasonable to not defend firearms and especially open carry of rifles in what's bound to be a heated environment because they are, you know, nazis.
Wait, so the Charlottesville murderer would have killed someone with a car anyway if there wasn't the rally, but people with guns clearly won't kill anyone if they're not at rallies?

That's not an internally consistent argument. The car driver also was in a "heated environment." He was participating in the rally, we have video of him there. It's not like he just coincidentally happened to be in the city at the time.
 

Slayven

Member
Sweep aside the hate speech laws debate.

There are prob ably dozens of rights cases everyday, why you got to pick the one that champions "Kill Niggers and Jews"?
 
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you arguing that if I or my class were in danger, I would step up and advocate for anything necessary to protect them?

You seem to be arguing that prohibiting hate speech, like many developed nations already do, would be giving up freedoms and turning right wing. To me, that feels like a position most easily taken up by those not targeted by hate speech or at least to a lesser degree.

We're specifically talking about hate speech and more specifically about Nazism in this thread, but you and many others are expanding it out into all free speech.

You ignored my earlier response to you so I thought maybe you didn't want to elaborate, just chastise.
 
Top Bottom