Yeah, I agree that once guns got involved, the situation becomes something rather threatening that needs to be controlled.
-
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
Yeah, I agree that once guns got involved, the situation becomes something rather threatening that needs to be controlled.
lightskintwin
Banned
i gotta agree with this.
excelsiorlef
Member
Is this a gotcha attempt?
I never said the laws were perfect but we don't have Nazi marches where people defend their freedom to do so as part of Canada's values.
Darryl M R
Member
Martin I swear you are nothing more than a troublemaker. Sure us black folks have it bad now but it could be much worse. You think this same government is just going to give us rights and treat us fairly? Stop the marching stop the protesting and just accept the world for what it is.
People that think like this are pathetic.
Wanting the world to change but not willing to demand it.
People that think like this are pathetic.
Wanting the world to change but not willing to demand it.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Should be, but it doesn't. Largely because it's not illegal.
Think of all the threads on racism where hundreds of posters say something like, "yeah, racism sucks but it's not illegal" to argue against consequences for racist acts. For a lot of people, the determiner for whether something is ok or not is whether it's legal or not. That's it, and that's why you people can get lynched and killed FEET from a police station and absolutists will defend the right of the people inciting violence to keep doing so.
White supremacy is an inherently violent ideology but because it's not illegal, many have no issue with it.
On a somewhat related note- and I'd open a new thread, but those have been getting killed so I'll try to keep this in a related thread- what is the best realistic endgame for the state of America? Does this reckoning reach a head and we somehow turn or eliminate a good chunk of the ideology of racism and hate? Do we simply force them back underground where, apparently, half the country was before? (And, obviously, things weren't great before either- plenty were persecuted and preyed upon unjustly, just less overtly than the world of today) Do things stay as they are, with the country at two polarized extremes? Getting Nazi speech out of the public may be a net gain, but what happens with all the actual Nazis in the end?
(Not asking these to try and tilt the free speech discussion one way or the other; I'm just trying to figure out what the ideal endgame actually is at this point)
Had not considered this discussion in light of other prior abused- but still good- laws. That is a pretty relevant point in favor of change that I overlooked.
(Not asking these to try and tilt the free speech discussion one way or the other; I'm just trying to figure out what the ideal endgame actually is at this point)
Had not considered this discussion in light of other prior abused- but still good- laws. That is a pretty relevant point in favor of change that I overlooked.
Let me just very clearly say that the entire US legal and political system is designed to uphold white male supremacy that is maintained by conscious and unconscious actors. So no, I do not think that any hypothetical nazi speech law would be enforce fairly. But, at the same time, I also don't think the Voting Rights Act is enforced fairly. I don't think the Housing Bill of 68 is enforced fairly. I don't think several of our laws enacted to prevent marginalization of oppressed group are enacted fairly because they are counterproductive to the primary benefactors of this system.
I can say that "hey maybe America should do something about those nazis" at the same time acknowledging that "even if they do they'll just fuck it up cause america is pretty okay with white supremacy"
excelsiorlef
Member
Here's something for you to read
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...iment-of-compromise/article22520419/comments/
It's rarely used because fundamentally it's focused on such things as what happened last weekend and since they are illegal they rarely happen.
lightskintwin
Banned
Our country was founded on White supremacy. White supremacy permeates our entire society. An acceptable version of it has been normalized. Most people know, whether they agree with the views, that society doesn't accept the extreme version of it and will largely stay away from it.
They move to South America.
excelsiorlef
Member
They are severely limited from making new ones
What did Argentina ever do to us
No, it was a joke.
Canada doesn't have a lot of things. Like an insane christian right that wants to censor everything or islamophobes that want to take away the rights of muslims. We have a line of groups that want to chip away our rights.
lightskintwin
Banned
But if anything that cartoon proves how such laws could be misapplied, and enforced regardless of the intent of the law due to interpretation.
MagnaderAlpha
Member
Depends if we try to label Nazis and White Supremacists "terrorist groups" that are dangerous to our prosperity and peace. Round 'em up and send them to Gitmo. Get ride of the ultra violent ones, and scare the shit out of those flirting with the idea. Spray those cockroaches back into the cracks from where they came.
Beyond hate speech laws, it's not obvious to me that those who are suspected on transgressing against those laws deserve to be protected through the normal warrant acquisition process. Consider: countless millions are posting on the net constantly. Are the police to sit on their hands and wait until a court issues a warrant every single time someone violates the law? The court system is already hilariously overburdened. There needs to be a streamlined process that sidesteps that shit and lets the police just do whatever searches are needed based on the situation.
That's a good point. I don't feel comfortable shoving the Nazi problem back to my country of birth. They're still dealing with the descendants of the original Nazis.
Do you really think this is a good idea? The police, of all groups?
excelsiorlef
Member
I said if you want to argue the US is uniquely fucked up by all means just don't make arguments like hate speech laws lower America Values and shit like that.
In other words just don't argue it's morally good, or that part of whatnmaked the US great is to let Nazis march.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Honestly not sure what you want to say. We don't act based on how idiots will react.
Who else are going to enforce these laws? We gonna ask politely?
Scarecrow
Member
The ACLU is working as intended. Our free speech laws are working as intended. Protest. Vote.
Laws aren't going to force bad ideas to go away. That hard work is up to society in general. Don't give the opposition the tools to more effectively subjugate others. It's a guarantee that stricter free speech laws will be perverted by the GOP and other a-holes to twist America further and faster into darkness.
Laws aren't going to force bad ideas to go away. That hard work is up to society in general. Don't give the opposition the tools to more effectively subjugate others. It's a guarantee that stricter free speech laws will be perverted by the GOP and other a-holes to twist America further and faster into darkness.
It's not only how GOP may use hate speech laws but what about regular people who don't want fucking Nazi's walking down the street want as well. You are absolutely terrified of the worst when the reality right now is heading into a terrible direction. And that is with your free speech bs.
lightskintwin
Banned
You're not looking at the bigger picture on how laws can come back and bite you in the ass especially in a White supremacist society. Some of ya'll are being emotional over the extreme version of it that's on the fringe and not the normalized version that permeates our society and will determine how it's enforced.
skullmuffins
Banned
This is a satire post about what happens if we decide some groups don't deserve constitutional protections, right
theignoramus
Member
posted this in the wrong place.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
/shrug
No, it is an attempt to give a suggestion how we can deal with all the garbage that is constantly piling up on twitter, Facebook, etc.
If you have a better idea, just share it instead of being sarcastic.
Darryl M R
Member
It sounds like you are not looking at the big picture. Snuffing out overt white supremacy and then covert.
I wasn't arguing for another group; I was arguing that allowing police to sidestep requirements given their current demonstrated lack of judgment seems like a bad idea.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
This is terrifying. Not even supporting Nazis will stop them from supporting trump. Nazis!!! Gosh this country is hosed.
lightskintwin
Banned
Covert has been normalized. It's not even covert. It's normal.
RowdyReverb
Member
This leads to the problem of who decides which groups have views or opinions that lead to intolerance. Yes, there are obvious cases like the group in Charlottesville where they literally label themselves as Nazis, but there could foreseeably be more grey areas where the idea could be used to squelch other views."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.
For instance, if you believed that somebody's economic views ultimately disenfranchise certain groups and thereby silenced their opinions, is it then reasonable to deny them a platform for free speech?
I'm not arguing against the point in the comic, just saying that it oversimplifies the solution to the problem that the ACLU faces.
Darryl M R
Member
So when a sizable group of the nation is energized to see a change in society for both overt (white supremacist at rallies) and covert (white supremacist statues, injustices for people of color) aspects your responses are that progress will be used against minorities therefore these efforts should stop?
That doesn't make any sense. This implies that if hate speech was outlawed and then minority advocacy is outlawed no one would speak up and demand for further progress.
But I have a feeling that you aren't going to persuaded by me nor am I by you. So we can end our conversation here or you can get the final post as a closer.
MisterShine
Member
They're going to point to BLM organizers that have ever tweeted "White Genocide", even as a joke, the Dallas shooter and that's all a conservative federal judge will need to declare BLM a hate group that needs to be rounded up.
Not a week in jail for looking at a cop wrong anymore, but 5 years for hate group sympathies because you went to a private meeting. I see this shit so clearly in my head.
lightskintwin
Banned
My point is BLM can exist and speak because Hate groups can exist and speak as another poster pointed out.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Oh God
Free speech is one thing, hate speech is another. I guess if you don't see a distinction then yeah, the ACLU seems blameless and no one should try to improve anything.
lightskintwin
Banned
I see a distinction, but I'm Black. Extremists have nothing to do with improving anything, they are on the fringes. It's a very shallow victory you're chasing for.
You have the causal relations here exactly wrong.
MisterShine
Member
The only thing that matters is a judge to decide which is which, actually. You know, the legal system founded on white supremacy? We lose a fuckton more than we gain with this. This fight needs to be won with words and bodies, and fighting back when we have to.
This is a fight we don't need and we can't win anyway.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
All of these counter-arguments all seem to provide the same "gosh, how do you figure out who's right?" notion.
It's actually very easy, we know what "kill/beat up/deport people X" sounds like, and it's easy to articulate how that type of speech when applied purely on basis of ethnicity, religion or orientation runs counter to the laws and spirit of the country. You include certain outs for religious types, as long as they're not taking it too far.
This problem has already been solved in other first world countries.
lightskintwin
Banned
It amazes me how some people can't see this.
Snarky(HEART)
Banned
I mean so what laws SHOULD be made then?