capitalCORN
Member
For those arguing for unfettered free speech, would you allow pro slavery marches? Because allowing so called white nationalists is to tolerate what's under the skin. Do you await for America's Kristallnacht?
-
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
- Thread starter Shard
- Start date
Audioboxer
Member
It's a long and multi-faceted debate. I've shared my thoughts on the ACLU in the main topic on them recently.
As someone living in a country with hate speech laws, I do not outright oppose them. I see use in having them. It's not cut and dry though, hate speech laws aren't a binary. An on or off, a yes or no. You need your Government to debate and legislate the extent of them. In the UK, we've had a right wing Government in charge for a while, and alongside hate speech laws, we're seeing bills passed on the erosion of privacy and the ever favourite clamping down on porn. Internet censorship laws, in general, are already pretty tough in the UK, with all of your streaming, torrent sites and more continually getting blocked (yes, arguments can be made against piracy, but it's the extent of the power the Government has to easily get courts blocking whatever they want). Free speech and expression tend to get manipulated/curbed under right-leaning Governments to meet their needs, who knew?
While I think arrests for incitement to violence or threatening social media posts are justified, just keep in mind the extent a Government can take it if they have the power.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nd-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-a...rning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-tshirt-police
And there's many more examples. Most of these idiots online should more soon face the public backlash, possibly T&C meaning their content/accounts are suspended/removed, maybe a sacking from work if it goes viral and as above for any who do incite direct violence, maybe an arrest. All of the people arrested? Well, it's potentially a waste of tax payer money, especially if they get jailed, and look at it this way Americans.... Some of your most viral and vicious satire are very anti-religion, anti-police and anti-Government. Do you want people, more people than any already are, getting arrested and jailed for political/social dissent? Remember, that is and what can happen when Governments get further powers to go after speech. Most people don't mind them going after violence and/or intent to cause violence/violent acts. Straight up speech when it's as clear as daylight it's not incitement, that can be a tricky path to do go down. Or a tricky balance to strike, especially when Governments can change every 4 years. The side you support isn't always the side in charge, so remember the same bills, laws and regulations your side get to use, the other sides does too.
It's great to say give the Government as many powers as they want because Twitter, Facebook and YouTube do not do enough. However, just remember the nuance needed to fully debate what can happen once the Government has such power, versus bickering over private companies T&Cs and how they in the "bubble" of their site/service might not be doing enough. Incitement to violence is still covered in America, so when it happens on social media the law and Government can and should still act. Or if it's incitement/intent in public, or wherever it is. Genuine threats or intent to commit violent acts/harm/murder and so on aren't included in the free-speech legislation. What you might be trying to argue here is can amendments be made just to include Nazis/Nazi imagery. That is something your country/Government would need to debate, but as is the case with most hate speech laws/bills, they tend to be more overarching than just singling out one thing. If you could get things amended just for Nazis, okay, but I've got a feeling if the 1st amendment is to be changed, the floodgates will open to at least include speech against the Bible belt too (Republicans jump up and down in excitement here). I'm sure they're already feeling like victims for how often there is dissent against them and their ongoing march against the LGBT and women's rights.
As someone living in a country with hate speech laws, I do not outright oppose them. I see use in having them. It's not cut and dry though, hate speech laws aren't a binary. An on or off, a yes or no. You need your Government to debate and legislate the extent of them. In the UK, we've had a right wing Government in charge for a while, and alongside hate speech laws, we're seeing bills passed on the erosion of privacy and the ever favourite clamping down on porn. Internet censorship laws, in general, are already pretty tough in the UK, with all of your streaming, torrent sites and more continually getting blocked (yes, arguments can be made against piracy, but it's the extent of the power the Government has to easily get courts blocking whatever they want). Free speech and expression tend to get manipulated/curbed under right-leaning Governments to meet their needs, who knew?
While I think arrests for incitement to violence or threatening social media posts are justified, just keep in mind the extent a Government can take it if they have the power.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nd-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/09/man-a...rning-koran-in-racist-youtube-videos-6697146/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/nazi-salute-dog-man-faces-hate-crime-charge-scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/11/manchester-man-jailed-tshirt-police
And there's many more examples. Most of these idiots online should more soon face the public backlash, possibly T&C meaning their content/accounts are suspended/removed, maybe a sacking from work if it goes viral and as above for any who do incite direct violence, maybe an arrest. All of the people arrested? Well, it's potentially a waste of tax payer money, especially if they get jailed, and look at it this way Americans.... Some of your most viral and vicious satire are very anti-religion, anti-police and anti-Government. Do you want people, more people than any already are, getting arrested and jailed for political/social dissent? Remember, that is and what can happen when Governments get further powers to go after speech. Most people don't mind them going after violence and/or intent to cause violence/violent acts. Straight up speech when it's as clear as daylight it's not incitement, that can be a tricky path to do go down. Or a tricky balance to strike, especially when Governments can change every 4 years. The side you support isn't always the side in charge, so remember the same bills, laws and regulations your side get to use, the other sides does too.
It's great to say give the Government as many powers as they want because Twitter, Facebook and YouTube do not do enough. However, just remember the nuance needed to fully debate what can happen once the Government has such power, versus bickering over private companies T&Cs and how they in the "bubble" of their site/service might not be doing enough. Incitement to violence is still covered in America, so when it happens on social media the law and Government can and should still act. Or if it's incitement/intent in public, or wherever it is. Genuine threats or intent to commit violent acts/harm/murder and so on aren't included in the free-speech legislation. What you might be trying to argue here is can amendments be made just to include Nazis/Nazi imagery. That is something your country/Government would need to debate, but as is the case with most hate speech laws/bills, they tend to be more overarching than just singling out one thing. If you could get things amended just for Nazis, okay, but I've got a feeling if the 1st amendment is to be changed, the floodgates will open to at least include speech against the Bible belt too (Republicans jump up and down in excitement here). I'm sure they're already feeling like victims for how often there is dissent against them and their ongoing march against the LGBT and women's rights.
There will always be a workaround. They could simply avoid that specific rhetoric in public, or use coded language like "economic anxiety".
Souldriver
Member
Yeah I'm probably super late and ignorant, but is there no rules against hate speech? If a March full of nazi's wants to get a permit, the answer should simply be : 'no you literally call for the murder of fellow citizens'.
Same for that KKK leader threatening to murder the black journalist. That is or should be a crime and he should be arrested and get slapped with a fine, restraining order, or jail time if he keeps brazenly repeating his claim in front of police interrogators.
Same for that KKK leader threatening to murder the black journalist. That is or should be a crime and he should be arrested and get slapped with a fine, restraining order, or jail time if he keeps brazenly repeating his claim in front of police interrogators.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
It doesn't say what you claim, so again, do you have some evidence for what you're claiming?
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Think about it this way: Trump is the President and the GOP holds both branches of Congress. Would you really trust the responsibility to fairly and objectively enforce hate speech laws when the President, just days ago, equivocated between neo-Nazis and the people protesting against them? Does anyone harbor any illusions about how he would use that power?
Trump is the perfect example of why the 1st amendment always has and likely always will be interpreted to broadly protect hate speech: the alternative is that a populist despot would casually reinterpret those laws to crack down on political dissidents.
We went from one of the most intelligent, level-headed Presidents in modern history to the direct inverse. So far as that transition is concerned, I've never believed in limited government more than now.
I like this. They promise to uphold and support the first amendment. Doesn't mean they also have to support the second.
Edit:
Neither of those examples are even hate speech. I am confused.
Not everything is classified as free speech. That is just a fact. Also, hate speech would get your ass thrown in jail in many countries. Many European countries don't fuck around when it comes to neo Nazis.
As America is tolerant of hate speech and gun culture, its enabling these fuckers to spread their hate through dangerous rhetorics and violence. No matter what noble intentions you may have, just note that it's an undeniable consequence of your stance.
As America is tolerant of hate speech and gun culture, its enabling these fuckers to spread their hate through dangerous rhetorics and violence. No matter what noble intentions you may have, just note that it's an undeniable consequence of your stance.
rackham
Banned
It doesn't have to be hate speech. It's an example of how things you say are not defensible because of the all powerful "free speech rule"
Those two things are already illegal to yell because they incite panic and could cause injury in public places so why is hate rhetoric looked at as something different?
Furthermore,to the person arguing about he slippery slope, the ACLU is not the U.K. Government. They're a public group.
skullmuffins
Banned
Those things are totally OK to yell in public, so the ACLU would defend you if you were being charged for it. The "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" standard was left behind decades ago.
This is what unprotected speech is:
Audioboxer
Member
If that is aimed at me, the ACLU are largely lawyers. Lawyers who will uphold the laws of America as they stand. That is literally their job, and countless times when the ACLU lawyers have spoken they've given PERSONAL condemnation of the people and beliefs on show, but gone on to explain why legally they are covered to speak without the Government shutting them down. As a lot of speech is on Government funded public University campuses, that is why you get a lot of ACLU input on invited speakers. I covered that more in this topic http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1418162
If you change the laws of the land, then the lawyers will have to change their stances too. As the ACLU has existed for nearly 100 years the point made by many on this board was to ask people donating to them did you not do any reading about who you were donating to before opening your wallet? Not meant as mockery, but genuinely asking considering it's all over the ACLU's website what their lawyers say https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech / https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus
The disconnect seems to be around realising that the ACLU is largely compromised of lawyers, and they know better than anyone at home how the laws of the land work and what is and isn't allowed. Therefore, most of the beefs people have are directly with the 1st or 2nd amendment, not the ACLU simply educating people on what those amendments are and allow. You could liken it to a public defender being assigned court cases to defend a criminal, as even criminals still have rights under the law. Many seem to be asking lawyers not to defend people they don't like/hate/don't approve of/see as the enemy/etc, but that's not how real life works, or how a court of law works. As the ACLU often deal with speech, they make it known what people are and aren't protected to say under the law without restriction from the Government or Government funded institutions.
For the lawyers to change, you need the Government to change the laws of the land, bills or any amendments for Americans. That, therefore, ties in directly to what I said above about things that can and do change once Governments start passing bills or amendments around speech/expression. It's linked, so it's relevant to discuss. The UK Government might not be directly relevant to the ACLU, but in these topics you often see people bring up Europe and speech regulation seen here. So, it's worthwhile discussing just what some European speech regulation is for Americans so it's not just saying "but Europe is what we need!". Look at what some of us actually have in detail, and then take that back to America and ask questions around how it will fit in alongside some of the unique situations Americans find themselves in. Your Republican party like it or not is still very dogmatic and religiously fueled. Most European countries uphold clearer separation of Church and State within political parties. I don't think it's alarmist to have a somewhat genuine conversation about how the Republicans could use hate speech to fight back against criticism, ridicule and satire of Jesus/God/Christianity. You then have a largely unique issue with your police forces, more so than anywhere else in the world. Again, I don't think it's alarmist to consider what the police could do with hate speech laws, as I did show above a man arrested in the UK for targetting the police.
skullmuffins
Banned
They said violence and meant literal violence, not speech.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The ACLU shouldn't defend terrorist organizations. That's exactly what the Klan and Nazis are.
Someone shouting in public that Jews should be gassed is an act of violence. Words themselves can be considered acts of violence. The courts have prosecuted husbands for verbal and emotional abuse of their wives, despite no actual physical assaults having taken place. Would such a defence work? "Your honor, I was only exercising my 1st Amendment rights in calling my wife a 'fucking bitch' repeatedly for the past decade". Pullease, get the fuck out of here with that bullshit!
skullmuffins
Banned
Don't yell at me, yell at the laws and the constitution if you don't like it.
They wouldn't be winning cases if their interpretation of the law was wrong.
Surprised by many of the responses here...I for one, support the ACLU as they are often the last lines of defense when it comes to free speech. Using the kkk and such as examples are easy to condemn as no normal person would support them but condemning speech can be a slippery slope and it is my personal "line in the sand".
Let them speak I say and they get to live with the consequences. In the age of the internet, there is no hiding. Just my $0.02
Let them speak I say and they get to live with the consequences. In the age of the internet, there is no hiding. Just my $0.02
cpp_is_king
Member
Certain types of speech are already considered a threat to public or individual safety and as such are not protected. Just reclassify hate speech as that (which, let's be honest, it is) and problem solved
MisterShine
Member
Framing such a law (or let's be real a constitutional amendment) that doesn't also hit groups like BLM, Socialist/Communist groups, Antifa groups... would be very difficult if not outright impossible.
That would be a valid defense. I have no idea why you think it wouldn't be.
Is Europe not also going through a rise in neo-nazism and extreme right politics? How well are those speech laws doing their supposed job?
I'm not being mocking here, I'm genuinely asking.
yanipheonu
Member
There are genuine arguments that violence includes psychological harm, which of course, is often induced by harmful speech.
"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.
People seeking to unjustly deprive others of the rights they enjoy should not be permitted to exercise said rights freely in pursuit of that cause.
Cut and dry except for what your meaning of "unjustly" is but at least with Nazis I think it's pretty clear.
Dreams-Visions
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.
that we must continue to litigate this shit in the year of our lord two thousand and seventeen continues to leave my slack-jawed.
The "hate speech should be illegal" argument isn't going to go anywhere since it's been ruled as legal by the Supreme Court, and as long as that's true, I would prefer the ACLU as non-partisan as possible.
Attorneys have to defend heinous, violent behavior on a daily basis. Behavior that would make a klansman blush. In those cases, I hope the system works, and the defense loses their case. They're a vital part of any legal system even when they're on "the wrong side."
I think barring white supremacists the right to march and rally is justifiable, as long as you base those arguments in the restrictions on speech already in place.
Attorneys have to defend heinous, violent behavior on a daily basis. Behavior that would make a klansman blush. In those cases, I hope the system works, and the defense loses their case. They're a vital part of any legal system even when they're on "the wrong side."
I think barring white supremacists the right to march and rally is justifiable, as long as you base those arguments in the restrictions on speech already in place.
IrishNinja
Member
I've been a member for nearly 15 years so im not gonna stop supporting them now - and I don't think anyone's reasonably making a case for them doing more harm than good...but as someone who was unaware of those examples, they're worth acknowledging.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Can't help you if you can't read
Gotdatmoney
Member
The whole slippery slope thing is only an argument because the people are so afraid of the Republican party they can't see that like every other modern nation has hate speech laws and their not burning nor are their citizens in the streets marching over their ability to talk being quelled.
Like, the problem isn't that free speech is being stifled to the detriment if everyone. The problem is your political system sucks ass and doesn't function in good faith. That doesn't make every other nation wrong.
Like, the problem isn't that free speech is being stifled to the detriment if everyone. The problem is your political system sucks ass and doesn't function in good faith. That doesn't make every other nation wrong.