You have the causal relations here exactly wrong.
"Just because someone has different opinions than you."
I have heard this so many times.
People do not care about racism.
You have anything to back that idea up?
That's definitely the impression received from most race related threads
"my friends/family are pretty racist but they're great people"
"just because a guy was racist on social media doesn't mean he should lose his job as a teacher/doctor/government official, what about his kids"
"just ignore racists shouting at women and children, the cops will get them (chuckle)"
"not all trump voters are racist"
The lack of repercussions reinforce some people's beliefs that racism is no more than a different opinion like whether or not you like ketchup on a hot dog.
I understand what the other two posters are saying about the futility of hoping for change in a white supremacist country, but if America wants to pretend to be better on the world stage it's going to have to step up
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.
I don't think there's futility of hoping for change in a white supremacist country, only that we should be careful in advocating for laws that could be easily interpreted against you within a White supremacist society.
Society as a whole shuns White supremaciy and it's extremists groups. Just look at how a lot of states and people in power have responded to the recent rally. These groups are on the fringes to begin with and hold no real power.
Unlike the normalized version of it.
"Just because someone has different opinions than you."
I have heard this so many times.
People do not care about racism.
Canada had the reform party which was as bad as it gets. Luckily Harper hated Manning, so the reform elements of the conservative party never got a strong foothold.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.
Come on son.
Things like the rally are easy to shun because they draw unwanted attention to white supremacy and almost move moderates slightly to the left. There's no cost to the ones at the top to decry shit like that, which Trump is too stupid to understand and why Bannon's mutant ass had to step up. Society as a whole is perfectly fine with white supremacy as long as no one's getting killed where they can see it.
Lack of hate speech provisions is a concession from government actors to their foot soldiers to try to keep them pacified and keep them from turning on the government when they don't do anything to improve their station.
"Just because someone has different opinions than you."
I have heard this so many times.
People do not care about racism.
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.
Washington Post said:Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year.
Moreover, Trumps picks are astoundingly young. Obamas early Court of Appeals nominees averaged age 55; Trumps nine picks average 48. That means, on average, Trumps appellate court nominees will sit through nearly two more presidential terms than Obamas. Many of Trumps judicial nominees will be deciding the scope of our civil liberties and the shape of civil rights laws in the year 2050 and beyond.
...
Progressives who are increasingly counting on the federal courts to be a bulwark against Trumps initiatives will increasingly find those courts stocked with judges picked by, and in sync with, Trump. With federal judges serving for life, one might think that the process of dramatically changing the makeup of the federal judiciary would take a long time. But given Trumps unprecedented pace, in just one more year, one-eighth of all cases filed in federal court will be heard by a judge he appointed.
It's not hard to figure out at all. You've got the Canadian flag as an avatar. Canada has robust hate speech laws, under both the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. The measuring stick is whether it is discriminatory, damaging or inciteful to violence as determined by a judge.
There are prison terms for up to 5 years for advocating genocide.
2 years for inciting hatred against an identifiable group distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation in a public space which is likely to lead to breach of peace.
Hate propaganda materials can be confiscated.
The provisos are that people cannot be charged if they can establish that the things they're saying are actually true, or within the context of discussion of beliefs based on a religious text (because that violates freedom of religion).
Other first world countries - the US included - would only stand to gain by adopting any of these laws. Society really gains nothing from letting nutjobs vent at others because of ethnicity or orientation.
The US Supreme Court voted 5-4 allowing same-sex marriages. They voted 5-4 in Citizens United ruling that political money is considered free speech. You want this group to have the power to decide what is and isn't hate speech which depending on the makeup of the justices can swing from one end to another. No thanks.
I mean, I feel like there's really not that many laws that couldn't be used against black People.
Figuring ways to twist laws that are on the surface benign as fuck into something that fucks with black people is an American pass time. The last few years they been screwing black people over with bicycle laws, bicycle laws
If it was up to them, "Fuck the Police" would've been hate speech, and NWA imprisoned over it.
I am in favor of freedom of speech. But if they rally and talk about conducting acts of violence, they should be treated like the terrorist group that they are. I don't think the public claim that they will be violent or inciting others to be violent should be protected. It's one thing to share your pathetic views. It's another to try and make others fear for their lives.
"Hate speech" in general is a broad term that could mean anything to anybody that wants to exploit any law against it. BUT, would we NEED it to be THAT BROAD? Instead of just saying "hate speech", it should be "White Supremacist/Nazi Hate Speech" or "Racist Hate Speech". The slippery slope ONLY applies when given wiggle room. Hate speech could mean, "Fuck you and the horse your road in on, you asshole!" or "Anybody that likes _ is a fuckin' pissant!" No, not that. If you focus on a specific type of hate speech, you might get less people trying to abuse it if it is made into law. There is NO denying that racism and White Supremacy is a problem in this country. Nazis, themselves, area group of people that should NEVER have the right to be protected, because they wish to ruin EVERYTHING in this world. I said it before, they are like a disease or cancer. You don't feel sorry for cancer cells if they die and a person pulls out of their cancer. There is NOTHING positive or progressive(to humanity as a whole) about Nazis. They deserve no sympathy and no compassion. They are the enemy of mankind.
"Hate speech" in general is a broad term that could mean anything to anybody that wants to exploit any law against it. BUT, would we NEED it to be THAT BROAD? Instead of just saying "hate speech", it should be "White Supremacist/Nazi Hate Speech" or "Racist Hate Speech". The slippery slope ONLY applies when given wiggle room.
"Hate speech" in general is a broad term that could mean anything to anybody that wants to exploit any law against it. BUT, would we NEED it to be THAT BROAD? Instead of just saying "hate speech", it should be "White Supremacist/Nazi Hate Speech" or "Racist Hate Speech". The slippery slope ONLY applies when given wiggle room. Hate speech could mean, "Fuck you and the horse your road in on, you asshole!" or "Anybody that likes _ is a fuckin' pissant!" No, not that. If you focus on a specific type of hate speech, you might get less people trying to abuse it if it is made into law. There is NO denying that racism and White Supremacy is a problem in this country. Nazis, themselves, area group of people that should NEVER have the right to be protected, because they wish to ruin EVERYTHING in this world. I said it before, they are like a disease or cancer. You don't feel sorry for cancer cells if they die and a person pulls out of their cancer. There is NOTHING positive or progressive(to humanity as a whole) about Nazis. They deserve no sympathy and no compassion. They are the enemy of mankind.
Figuring ways to twist laws that are on the surface benign as fuck into something that fucks with black people is an American pass time. The last few years they been screwing black people over with bicycle laws, bicycle laws
How are black people uniquely affected by bicycle laws?
EDIT: Also, a literal amendment to say: "Free speech for everyone except Nazis" would just result in "Nazis" changing their name. To have any affect you'd have to identify the type of language banned, rather than a specific group.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm
Dunno if any of these would meet your criteria though
My point is BLM can exist and speak because Hate groups can exist and speak as another poster pointed out.
I don't know how you can effectively ban the language. It would be so narrow, that people would probably just make new symbols and messages, or worse they'll just go underground.
I think maybe the law could reconsider what "imminently threatening" means, and if there's merit in consider broadening that definition at least a little.
Great posts in this thread. You're right - the fringe/extreme cases are the ones that truly test the principles behind things like freedom of speech, and are the ones that we have to hold our noses and accept in order to keep our essential freedoms.
Great posts in this thread. You're right - the fringe/extreme cases are the ones that truly test the principles behind things like freedom of speech, and are the ones that we have to hold our noses and accept in order to keep our essential freedoms.
Maybe we can just ban nazism specifically.
Then they'll call themselves a Christian group
Ford didn't invent the automobile.Jesus fucking Christ. Just remember, if Ford hadn't invented the automobile, hundreds of thousands wouldn't have been killed in accidents.
This is drawing some weird parallels to gun control arguments. The restrictions work elsewhere, but when it come to the US, ¯_(ツ_/¯
True. Any law that restricts speech pertaining about or from a specific race would never pass a constitutional test. Think of hate crime laws, for example. While not occurring often, the laws do allow for hate crime laws to be applied for crimes against Caucasians or Christians. A hate crime law that stated "White people will get X more years punishment for crimes against Y" would never pass the 14th amendment.In theory, I agree with you; In interpretation, application, and enforcement, I don't.
You really think they would get that specific about White supremacy/Nazi Hate Speech? I mean I'd be down for that in a heartbeat, but knowing the history of the country I just can't see that passing without it being generalized. Not to mention, if the version of the law you described pass, It set's a precedent for other "Hate" speech laws to get passed as a response.
On one end,everyone agrees that human rights should not be used to defend people who would take advantage of them for violent purpose .
On the other hand,most people didn't agree with Trump's policy of restricting Muslim entrance to the US.
And yes, the Muslim ideology is completely comparable to Nazi ideology.
Your tag is super helpful right now.
Popper once again articulating the ideas I couldn't express.
Though I suspect it's only a vocabulary paradox, not a real, logical paradox. Tolerance and intolerance are probably not the best words to use in this context, and if we insist to use them in this context they may not really be antonyms.
A tolerant approves tolerance and disapprove intolerance.
intolerance is specifically outside of the realm of things tolerance can tolerate.
Or something. I'm not a philosopher.
ACLU has refused to defend conscientious objectors and interment camp victims before, so the myth of them being equally helpful to everyone needs to drop dead
Only emotion is prevailing right now.
Free speech was never absolute anyway, this seems pretty cut and dry.
Some cases from the 40s. They've been around for nearly 100 years so yeah, some bad calls have probably been made. Afaict those cases are more complicated than he made them out to be, as well. They didn't just say yo, we're ok with internment camps...they were involved with a lot of those cases....well, shit
And those laws have been abused in interesting ways. I don't see how to make a law that doesn't lead to this dude going to jail. Which would totally be ironic given why he said those things, as his point is that "Black Americans right to defend themselves against white violence has historically been framed as hateful, whereas white Americans right [to] self-defense, which is often understood as their need to protect themselves from blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, is thought to be constitutional and an exercise of freedom,.
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (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.