Support NeoGAF

[Kthulhu]

Do folks not know there history?

Many don't. The oppression of minority groups in the country is whitewashed to hell.

 

[MisterShine]

Why aren't white nationalists treated the way radical Muslims are?

The ACLU defends both?

 

[JABEE]

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.

I guess the question is how that applies to actual political speech and whether the ACLU should protect the right for political speech and assembly in the name of legal precedent for all political speech.

There was a time in this country when reporters could be jailed for speaking out against a war, doing, something “un-American.” The argument is that certain kinds of speech do irreparable damage to institutions. Communists and Peace advocates in America around the First World War were impacted.

Unions were crushed in this country in the name of rooting out secret commie agents.

Politicians and mob rule based on fear will not hesitate to crush speech in this country to protect corrupt institutions.

Fascist beliefs and hate speech are protected by free speech. The ACLU protects the first amendment so that legal rulings and precedent can not be used to crush political speech some of which you may agree on. I don’t think political speech should be up to the discretion of politicians. People can decide to speak out against the ACLU for doing this, but I will disagree.

You are right though, speech is limited by the courts, but no matter how much I disagree with racist fascism, I don’t believe compromising or weakening free speech related to political or in this case hate speech solves the problem.

The ACLU is not responsible for hate groups breaking the law and the police lacking the resources to intervene to enforce the law. I’m not a fan of non-profit organizations as a whole, but I don’t think the ACLU did the wrong thing.

People should be angry at elected political leaders who refuse to call out the President directly for supporting hate speech and action.

 

[traveler]

Is this the bottom?

or this?

You said it could get worse, there are entire black cities in america that was erased off the map, The only time the USA bombed American citizens on USA soil was to firebomb black people

Because the rhetoric being used, the same rhetoric I want restricted, seem to be on the side that want these outcomes.

What I wrote was a counterpoint to your argument, which seemed to be that the government is already abusing black activists. My point was simply I don't think it's a binary thing- abusing or not abusing- I think as new outlets open up for them to abuse protesters- like potential new hate speech laws- they will get worse.

And bottom of the barrel was in reference to what the US government could do in the present age, not the entire history of oppression. I definitely don't know all my history, but I'm well aware we'd have to do some seriously fucked up shit to even come close to our past.

 

[Darryl M R]

And guess what they don't enforce it. If they did anyone in those countries would be cut off from several parts of the internet. The freedom of the internet is thanks to US free speech laws.

What?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-facebook-google-twitter.html?mcubz=0

 

[Karkador]

Because they're the ones in power? Hello, do you see Trump as President? Sessions as AG? Bannon as his right hand man? Guess what, they're trying their damnedest to take away the ability for BLM to protest, and they're trying to strip away the power of free speech already.

I agree that's a problem; I've stated as much in other threads about this. What does them being in power have to do with the First Amendment? What does anything of that change about how they got into power?

They've already gone as far as being able to label this situation as 'both sides', to accuse antifas as being the problem, to smear the news media as problematic. Like...are you ignorant of the situation we're in that nazis and supremacists feel free to march openly?

I'll say what I said in other threads. The current administration seems to be emboldening these people, and that's a huge problem. I want them out of office as much as you do. I don't want any white supremacists anywhere near office of law enforcement. But none of that has anything to do with restricting speech. If anything, you should be extremely cautious of what this administration wants to do against free speech, considering how they treat the press.

 

[zabuni]

Laws can't change?

Well, given most of the ideas for prohibiting speech violate the first amendment, you are going to need 2/3 of all of congress, or 2/3 of the state legislatures. Given that the people closest to pulling that off are the Republicans, maybe we should work on that first, before figuring out how to change the laws if we had the capability.

Also, from the Popehat link:

But the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about "harmful" words. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are universally reviled and held up as an example of the worst sort of speech; the Court found their speech protected by a margin of 8-1. The Court struck down an overbroad law prohibiting "crush videos" of animals being killed by the same margin. There is no sign of any movement towards the proposition that speech may be restricted because it is hurtful or disfavored — the sort of speech that provokes this banal media observation that law changes.

Also, in terms of the Supreme Court, guess who has the ability to put judges in right now?

 

[excelsiorlef]

.

Hate speech is not an obvious parallel to the Patriot Act... Like why do you keep insisting it is when you can look around you and see how it works elsewhere.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

Hateful against protected classes, yeah.

You seem to have attention issues so I'll sum up our exchange so far:
1. You were apparently very concerned by how not tolerating intolerance would work without people throwing punches.
2. I pointed out that the process itself, regardless of how you feel about its goals, isn't exactly rocket science and is perfectly compatible with a robust rule of law.
3. Your answer was "yeah, but what would it achieve?", which was a nice deflection.
4. That's when I took that huge slippery slope and now here we are, censorship.

You still have an answer to your initial question, which apparently was never the issue. Don't lead in with matters of practicality when it's not what bothers you.

(I think the argument about the real world ability to set up such laws in the current US judicial framework is a much sounder one than these vague concerns)

My question wasn't about how. It was about who and when. I think you should reread my initial post if you want to continue.

We don't drone strike ISIS insurgents in our country. We monitor them closely, force them underground to prevent recruitment, raid their houses, arrest them and put them in jail.

You still think these alt-right d-bags would spew their racist hatred online and try to organize under the threat of FBI raid? Nah, they're fucking cowards and would abandon the movement the moment their shitty lives are in jeopardy of being further ruined.

They already are under the threat of an FBI raid. How do you think Ruby Ridge started? What do you think the FBI is doing after the Oklahoma City bombing?

What?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-facebook-google-twitter.html?mcubz=0

The law will take effect in October, less than a month after nationwide elections, and will apply to social media sites with more than two million users in Germany.

I hate to be one of those people, but I'm still technically correct. It isn't enforced yet.

 

[Karkador]

That's not what I said.

Laws made using a combination of white supremacy and the first amendment will be held in regard by absolutists like yourself because they're attached to the first amendment, and that is why there will be no progress.

Give me an example

 

[Darryl M R]

What I wrote was a counterpoint to your argument, which seemed to be that the government is already abusing black activists. My point was simply I don't think it's a binary thing- abusing or not abusing- I think as new outlets open up for them to abuse protesters- like potential new hate speech laws- they will get worse.

And bottom of the barrel was in reference to what the US government could do in the present age, not the entire history of oppression. I definitely don't know all my history, but I'm well aware we'd have to do some seriously fucked up shit to even come close to our past.

That is a stupid argument.

"It can get worse...but don't look at the past I mean modern day worse."

I would argue that the majority of black people are not worried about the government abusing its powers more onto us, but worried about moderates making sure that the government can abuse its powers on us without trying to fight for justice.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

The ACLU defends both?

No I mean how come kkk members and nazis don't get arrested like they do.

 

[Abelard]

I draw the line with free speech at advocating violence, so if I am reading this right, I am okay with this.However, that does not mean I am against all instances of far-right speech being covered under free speech- only under cases of advocating violence or worse should it apply. That means Milo, the opportunistic hack that he is, should still be allowed to operate (I am assuming that he has yet to advocate/instigate violence).

In general though its funny to see GAF turn against free speech and the first amendment like this. First of all, you want controlled speech in a far-right controller government? Lol. Second of all, read history. Its usually always been people on the left who have been persecuted for their speech, it has always been something we fought for and you cannot just give that right up just because the tables have turned and it is the right who is is spouting things against what is culturally accepted.

I have citizenship in both Canada and the US and the former (where I am living now) has hate speech laws. Sure its all well and good now, but those in power will always decide what hate speech is. We are already having problems with Bill C-16 which criminalizes gender expression and identity to the hate speech criminal code. Now on paper you might think it sounds all well and good, but there is a slippery slope here where misidentifying someone, even by accident could potentially be considered criminal!

 

[traveler]

Hate speech is not an obvious parallel to the Patriot Act... Like why do you keep insisting it is when you can look around you and see how it works elsewhere.

This isn't about what works or doesn't work, I understand that other countries have successfully restricted speech where Americans don't and haven't suffered Armageddon for it; it's about the principle of arguing for a reduction in current American values in the name of safety. I'm asking- how do we go to the right wing and explain how this is different than when we were criticizing them for tapping phones in the name of saving lives?

That is a stupid argument.

"It can get worse...but don't look at the past I mean modern day worse."

I would argue that the majority of black people are not worried about the government abusing its powers more onto us, but worried about moderates making sure that the government can abuse its powers on us without trying to fight for justice.

Your argument was that making a change in modern hate speech laws- which would be open up new avenues for the modern us government- couldn't make things worse for black activists because they're already being prosecuted. All I was saying was that I think the current government could treat them worse than they are now, so I'm not convinced that's a great argument.

 

[Darryl M R]

Well, given most of the ideas for prohibiting speech violate the first amendment, you are going to need 2/3 of all of congress, or 2/3 of the state legislatures. Given that the people closest to pulling that off are the Republicans, maybe we should work on that first, before figuring out how to change the laws if we had the capability.

Also, from the Popehat link:



Also, in terms of the Supreme Court, guess who has the ability to put judges in right now?

To quote myself,

I don't think people need to preface the statement, "Hate speech should be outlawed and not protected" with "In an administration that was not racist" every single time.

 

[Kthulhu]

No I mean how come kkk members and nazis don't get arrested like they do.

Because the GOP doesn't want to lose one of its biggest voting blocs.

The southern strategy literally exists to get these people to vote Republican.

 

[Mark L]

Assuming away the issue of the First Amendment, I will just say this: any laws against hate speech will need to specifically make it clear that they refer to certain protected classes and cases. If they are general laws, they will be instantly used against the minorities they are meant to protect.

 

[Kettch]

You don't need to discuss slippery slopes or anything like that. If you roll back the first amendment to allow hate speech laws, the very first thing to be made illegal isn't going to be nazi or racist speech, it's going to be black lives matter. That's currently the right wing's top target, and they control the government.

A lot of things suck in America right now, but they can always get worse.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This isn't about what works or doesn't work, I understand that other countries have successfully restricted speech where Americans don't and haven't suffered Armageddon for it; it's about the principle of arguing for a reduction in current American values in the name of safety. I'm asking- how do we go to the right wing and explain how this is different than when we were criticizing them for tapping phones in the name of saving lives?

I'd say adding hate speech laws raises American Values not reduces it.

Btw I've argued for hate speech laws far before this weekend.

 

[tomtom94]

That means Milo, the opportunistic hack that he is, should still be allowed to operate (I am assuming that he has yet to advocate/instigate violence).

Milo is a fascist. This handwringing over whether what he says technically counts as violence or incitement is precisely how we ended up in this situation.

 

[harriet the spy]

Why aren't white nationalists treated the way radical Muslims are?

By the media, the police, or the hard left?
(Fuck them both)

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

The American Civil Liberties (but only if we agree with you) Union.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

(I am assuming that he has yet to advocate/instigate violence).

What would lead you to assume this when he's almost exclusively discussed in the context of harming someone or turning his followers onto a target?

Give me an example

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm

Dunno if any of these would meet your criteria though

 

[Toxi]

And guess what they don't enforce it. If they did anyone in those countries would be cut off from several parts of the internet. The freedom of the internet is thanks to US free speech laws.

Oh yeah, those US free speech laws are doing a bang up job of keeping net neutrality intact

 

[Deepwater]

I draw the line with free speech at advocating violence, so if I am reading this right, I am okay with this.However, that does not mean I am against all instances of far-right speech being covered under free speech- only under cases of advocating violence or worse should it apply. That means Milo, the opportunistic hack that he is, should still be allowed to operate (I am assuming that he has yet to advocate/instigate violence).

In general though its funny to see GAF turn against free speech and the first amendment like this. First of all, you want controlled speech in a far-right controller government? Lol. Second of all, read history. Its usually always been people on the left who have been persecuted for their speech, it has always been something we fought for and you cannot just give that right up just because the tables have turned and it is the right who is is spouting things against what is culturally accepted.

You're arguing against strawmen arguments that haven't been made.

Nobody ITT has advocated that we push Congress to make nazi speech laws and try to enforce it in a Republican Capitol.

People are advocating that we (society) should consider that drawing a line at nazi propaganda/white supremacy should be a clear cut thing.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

I'd say adding hate speech laws raises American Values not reduces it.

Btw I've argued for hate speech laws far before this weekend.

Are you american? I think it should be americans who decide on american values.

 

[traveler]

I'd say adding hate speech laws raises American Values not reduces it.

Btw I've argued for hate speech laws far before this weekend.

That seems like a better line to me. With a good case for that and a ready explanation for how this is different than actions I'm at least seeing as parallels, I'd be open for a change.

Are you american? I think it should be americans who decide on american values.

If s/he can make a compelling argument for what they consider the most core American values and convince Americans that this brings more to them than it takes away, I don't see any reason they'd need to be American.

 

[Deepwater]

The American Civil Liberties (but only if we agree with you) Union.

At the end of the day, I need yall to acknowledge the fact that you're boiling down white supremacy and nazism as simple concepts that you agree/disagree with as if it's as mundane as the way you like your fucking coffee

 

[Vimes]

The First Amendment has not adequately protected BLM's right to protest. Were you all sleeping on local GOP passing laws to protect perpetrators of literally the kind of vehicle attack that happened last weekend? This concern trolling is transparent as hell.

The ACLU says they won't support armed protest anymore. Did you ever think about what effect having a bunch of pissed of nazis armed with semiautos has on the free speech of everyone else? It does not help BLM, trust me.

 

[Nafai1123]

They already are under the threat of an FBI raid. How do you think Ruby Ridge started? What do you think the FBI is doing after the Oklahoma City bombing?

You serious?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

 

[ShironRedshift]

You don't need to discuss slippery slopes or anything like that. If you roll back the first amendment to allow hate speech laws, the very first thing to be made illegal isn't going to be nazi or racist speech, it's going to be black lives matter. That's currently the right wing's top target, and they control the government.

A lot of things suck in America right now, but they can always get worse.

That's literally just a slippery slope argument though. And that's no reason not to act and not to make hate speech illicit--that's just giving into fear. Understandable fear, but fear nonetheless. As I said to someone else who brought up this point:

No, it doesn't. Countries which have hate speech laws like Canada and Germany prove this is not the case. There is no fucking slippery slope. I'm sick and tired of hearing about it. It doesn't exist, so stop beating us over the goddamn head with it unless you can provide some actual proof of it's existence and stop just yelling "slippery slope, slippery slope!" as if that should shut down discussion of it in of itself. Until I see some actual proof of European countries/Canada falling into this so-called slippery slope despite having such laws on the books for decades that are very clearly defined with no such thing occurring, I ain't buying.

This ain't a thing, because as countries like Canada and Germany prove, it's very easy to concoct such legislation that doesn't leave any room to leave itself open to that. This just wreaks of cowardice to even try it in the United States despite it being just fine in other nations. Even if the US is in fact different and it does happen here despite not happening elsewhere, even if the slippery slope does magically appear in the US despite not appearing elsewhere, all that proves is that such hypothetical piggyback laws are unjust (which, no duh) and would need to be overturned says nothing, absolutely nothing of hate speech itself and whether it should be legal or not.

Yes, such laws, if they indeed happen, would be completely 100% unjust and deserve to be fought and kicked down. That's absolutely, positively no reason not to try at all and to allow the current situation to stand. Regardless of any hypothetical consequences, hate speech itself is nonetheless unjust and deserves absolutely no protections. No matter what hypothetical consequences, that remains true and in no way changes. All that says is that those piggyback laws would be unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is currently legal in the United States despite it causing any number of different types of harm to its targets, an inherently unjust proposition. No matter what the hypothetical consequences you come up with, all that says is that those consequences too are unjust. It doesn't change the fact that hate speech is essentially completely legal in the United States, despite the harm it causes, an inherently unjust proposition which should not be allowed to stand.

Yes, of course there are risks to acting and changing the law! There always are! But if and when those arise, we are capable of dealing with those as well and not allowing to them to stand one moment longer than they have to! That is not, however, by any stretch of the imagination, any excuse for not acting at all to begin with when the current situation itself is unjust and allows others to cause harm with no repercussions or justice being allowed to be served whatsoever. That's something I refuse to accept, particularly when we do in fact have the power to enact change and make sure that such justice does occur and such acts are not allowed to continue unabated.

To do otherwise, is to simply give into fear over what might or might not be, and let that fear decide our actions, while injustices continue to go on while we refuse to act and refuse to change the situation. But to quote FDR:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

Of course, to be perfectly clear as I don't at all want to imply otherwise, it's perfectly natural to be afraid of such possibilities. That's just part of being human--naturally being afraid that the things we care about the most could be stripped away at any moment. But at the same time while it's perfectly natural and understandable, as FDR himself said, we can't allow ourselves to be paralyzed by that fear or else needed efforts to progress and improve our situation instead of letting the status quo continue unabated will just disappear entirely.

So while indeed it's perfectly natural and understandable to be afraid, it's unnecessary, because even in the event the worst happens, we can then stand up against that and fight that in turn with everything we've got. And then just continue to fight, and continue to fight, and continue to fight, as long as it takes. But nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen or change if we refuse to fight to begin with. And that's something I refuse to accept with injustices such as these occurring every day.

After all, in the end, all we have to fear is fear itself. That's the real enemy here. Just take a look at your own post. You seem to recognize that it's indeed unfair and unjust that people are targeted by hate speech and there's nothing they can do about it, but you refuse to act to change the status quo because of what you fear will happen next if that indeed occurs. Those fears are valid and natural, but they're nonetheless no reason to let an unjust situation stand. Cause even if worst comes to worst, we can deal with that in turn. But that's no reason not to act to begin with and to let injustices stand. I completely refuse to accept that, 100%. To give into fear like that, no matter how valid, justified, and understandable those fears are, is to lose before we've even begun to fight. And giving in and losing without so much as a fight is something that I refuse to do.

 

[SecretMoblin]

In general though its funny to see GAF turn against free speech and the first amendment like this. First of all, you want controlled speech in a far-right controller government? Lol. Second of all, read history. Its usually always been people on the left who have been persecuted for their speech, it has always been something we fought for and you cannot just give that right up just because the tables have turned and it is the right who is is spouting things against what is culturally accepted.

Thurgood Marshall was a disgusting alt-right Nazi sympathizer. It's good to know that his brand of "both sides" free speech absolutism will die a painful death. We're just on the right side of history with this one.

 

[Darryl M R]

At the end of the day, I need yall to acknowledge the fact that you're boiling down white supremacy and nazism as simple concepts that you agree/disagree with as if it's as mundane as the way you like your fucking coffee

People see it as if it is a hat they can put on to boost their outfit.

"Maybe today I'll hold Nazi views? Hmmm. Aryan White hat or Victim Blood Red hat?"

 

[watershed]

Once they march with guns, it ain't about free speech anymore. White supremacists are looking for violence and preparing for it. The ACLU is right to turn around on this issue.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Are you american? I think it should be americans who decide on american values.

Nope. Canadian

But if Canada ever allows Nazis to roam openly feel free to say that Canada has lowered their values. I won't be offended.

 

[harriet the spy]

At the end of the day, I need yall to acknowledge the fact that you're boiling down white supremacy and nazism as simple concepts that you agree/disagree with as if it's as mundane as the way you like your fucking coffee

I completely support hate speech laws, but what a fucking stupid analogy / straw man. Freedom of speech is only relevant when that speech could be deemed offensive.

 

[Darryl M R]

Are you american? I think it should be americans who decide on american values.

I'm American and I agree with everything excelsiorlef has said.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I'm American and I agree with everything excelsiorlef has said.

Yup.

American laws aren't perfect, and you don't need to be American to see that.

 

[zabuni]

You're arguing against strawmen arguments that haven't been made.

Nobody ITT has advocated that we push Congress to make nazi speech laws and try to enforce it in a Republican Capitol.

People are advocating that we (society) should consider that drawing a line at nazi propaganda/white supremacy should be a clear cut thing.

And I'd say that there's enough people who are racist enough to equate white nationalists with things like BLM for any attempt to put in a cutout for white supremacy would end up being vague enough to be weaponized by rightwingers, probably against the very people it was trying to protect.

 

[Darryl M R]

And I'd say that there's enough people who are racist enough to equate white nationalists with things like BLM for any attempt to put in a cutout for white supremacy would end up being vague enough to be weaponized by rightwingers, probably against the very people it was trying to protect.

Do you think those same racist people that would equate an advocacy group with a hate group would also be the same people that would make sure that minorities rights are not fully protected?

 

[lightskintwin]

There shouldn't be laws against the speech of White supremacists. It should be society as a whole that shuns them.

 

[StrategyFan]

the slippery slope might not exist in other countries because those countries are actually democratic

the US is not democratic. the most important thing to pass laws (especially to change the constitution) is quantity of states in support, not quantity of people. if enough state representatives decide to be little shits about it, they can overrule the majority population about pretty much anything

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

And I'd say that there's enough people who are racist enough to equate white nationalists with things like BLM for any attempt to put in a cutout for white supremacy would end up being vague enough to be weaponized by rightwingers, probably against the very people it was trying to protect.

So nothing should be done because the right could try to abuse it?

I'm guessing in this scenario moderates and centrists are just as useless as they are now

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

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?

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.

 

[Darryl M R]

So nothing should be done because the right could try to abuse it?

I'm guessing in this scenario moderates and centrists are just as useless as they are now

I'm debating getting that MLK quote tattooed on my skin.

 

[Deepwater]

And I'd say that there's enough people who are racist enough to equate white nationalists with things like BLM for any attempt to put in a cutout for white supremacy would end up being vague enough to be weaponized by rightwingers, probably against the very people it was trying to protect.

That's not a convincing argument when the implementation of current laws are already used to marginalize black political expression.

When black protestors can get arrested for not walking on a sidewalk or for "resisting arrest", you do not make a convincing argument that we shouldn't marginalize objectively hateful groups that have historically enacted violence.

 

[skullmuffins]

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.

Huh? No. I'm saying the car murderer was using the same style of tactics that ISIS does. I know he was at the rally and it probably worked him up too so yeah, it was a factor. If we want to make sure people can't get vehicles near where protesters gather, that's fine.

The guns thing, it's because protests (non-nazi ones too, for the record) can sometimes turn violent even when they started out with 'peaceful' intentions, and I don't think it's a good idea to bring weapons into that kind of environment? Like you don't want people bringing guns into bars either.

I'm trying to come to this discussion from a standpoint of what we can reasonably accomplish now or in the near future to make things safer, not the hypothetical state of what our ideal free speech laws should be. I don't think it's a great idea to try revamping the 1st amendment while we're under an abnormally racist and fascist administration, and the idea is almost certainly a non-starter anyway given the current makeup of the supreme court. At least it might require more people get killed or seriously injured before rallies with these kinds of groups are recognized as ongoing inherent dangers and not just a one-off thing that got out of control.

 

[Karkador]

What would lead you to assume this when he's almost exclusively discussed in the context of harming someone or turning his followers onto a target?



http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm

Dunno if any of these would meet your criteria though

I'm gonna take a look and respond soon

You're arguing against strawmen arguments that haven't been made.

Nobody ITT has advocated that we push Congress to make nazi speech laws and try to enforce it in a Republican Capitol.

People are advocating that we (society) should consider that drawing a line at nazi propaganda/white supremacy should be a clear cut thing.

Maybe it's just the feeling washing over from other threads, but people here on GAF have definitely been pushing for laws on paper, and I think that's really not the way we should go here.

I can definitely agree that we need to draw a line (again, as if we didn't before) at nazi propaganda and white supremacy/nationalism. We need to respond with that message loud and clear, that as a society, the rest of us wont tolerate it, using the same first amendment rights they got. I do believe we easily outnumber them, and we can't stay silent.

The other issue is that we need to get dog whistling nazis like Trump out of office.

 

[O Canada Our Home and Native Land]

You serious?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO

Your link doesn't say they were never under FBI watch. Trump being a pos that gives racist groups a pass doesn't mean the FBI won't be keeping an eye on them. After last weekend Democrats can try to push the FBI to focus more on racist groups again.

Nope. Canadian

But if Canada ever allows Nazis to roam openly feel free to say that Canada has lowered their values. I won't be offended.

Do you consider Laura Southern a Nazi?

 

[Ferrio]

That's not a convincing argument when the implementation of current laws are already used to marginalize black political expression.

When black protestors can get arrested for not walking on a sidewalk or for "resisting arrest", you do not make a convincing argument that we shouldn't marginalize objectively hateful groups that have historically enacted violence.

So these laws aren't used justly and fairly, and you think hate speech laws in the GOP hands will be?