-
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
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
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
Snarky(HEART)
Banned
"Just because someone has different opinions than you."
I have heard this so many times.
People do not care about racism.
I have heard this so many times.
People do not care about racism.
Vicetrailia
Member
The real world sucks doesn't it. Many people in this country just don't have the capacity to get it, fortunately for them.
lightskintwin
Banned
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.
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,.
It absolutely sucks, but the ACLU is doing the right thing here. The events of the last year have shown how easily governmental norms can be ignored and pushed aside in order to pursue a dangerous and corrupt agenda. It is extremely easy to see how a conservative government, more empowered via gerrymandering, voter restriction, and in control of all three branches could strip away core rights for progressive thinkers. Get enough immoral, corrupt judges on the supreme court and anything could be deemed as hate speech. Does this sound like a slippery slope? Yes, but we need only look at how many states pursuing laws protecting drivers who hit protesters to see a first glimpse at what the future might hold. Our combination of two-party politics, gerrymandering, and first past the post elections mean that this is far more dangerous here than in the UK, Germany, or any other country where parliamentary politics make it more difficult to achieve a total majority.
I wish it could be the other way, that Nazis could be jailed en masse and hate speech criminalized to the fullest extent possible, but in playing the long game the ACLU is doing the right thing.
I wish it could be the other way, that Nazis could be jailed en masse and hate speech criminalized to the fullest extent possible, but in playing the long game the ACLU is doing the right thing.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
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.
Yup. Doesn't hurt them none.
Snarky(HEART)
Banned
I mean, I feel like there's really not that many laws that couldn't be used against black People.
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.
lightskintwin
Banned
Agreed, you mean the normalized version. LOL I mean we already have laws against inciting violence, and terrorism and enforcing them against right wing, White supremacist/nationalist terrorism.
Lightning_Roller
Banned
Yep.
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.
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 the other. No thanks.
lightskintwin
Banned
If it was up to them, "Fuck the Police" would've been hate speech, and NWA imprisoned over it.
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
lightskintwin
Banned
Bruh, just look at the Black Lives Matter movement that in response has created a wave of Blue Lives Matter LAWS in some states.
I feel that there are tough, real questions that the ACLU, law enforcement, the government, and the citizenry needs to discuss in relation to the first amendment and free speech.
However, when you have a terrorist group committing acts of terror, like ISIS, like Al Qaeda, groups that have declared war on the West and sponsored by a rogue state, as enemy combatants dealing with them is different.
Now when you have people flying Nazi flags, chanting Nazi slogans, and attacking with terror tactics... Well, I mean, they're Nazis! The tough questions now have simple answers.
My attitude towards free speech landed on the side of it needing to be almost total. But what was I to know? The West has been so stable for so long, groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis were fringe, and powerless, and silencing them might have created problems that might result in other groups being silenced. The courts could be very literal and a bad case might make bad law and a future socialist group might find their voices smashed by a problematic legal precedent.
My attitude was this way because I believed... well, failed to believe that a Nazi-sympathiser could become the President of the United States.
Rather than Nazis being a problematic fringe group that makes us reflect on how we as a society deal with our darkest selves, I felt th--holy shit! Nazis terrorists are being given comfort by the fucking President, holy shit we need to stop them now because Trump may very well destroy the country! What the fuuuuu--
However, when you have a terrorist group committing acts of terror, like ISIS, like Al Qaeda, groups that have declared war on the West and sponsored by a rogue state, as enemy combatants dealing with them is different.
Now when you have people flying Nazi flags, chanting Nazi slogans, and attacking with terror tactics... Well, I mean, they're Nazis! The tough questions now have simple answers.
My attitude towards free speech landed on the side of it needing to be almost total. But what was I to know? The West has been so stable for so long, groups like the KKK and Neo-Nazis were fringe, and powerless, and silencing them might have created problems that might result in other groups being silenced. The courts could be very literal and a bad case might make bad law and a future socialist group might find their voices smashed by a problematic legal precedent.
My attitude was this way because I believed... well, failed to believe that a Nazi-sympathiser could become the President of the United States.
Rather than Nazis being a problematic fringe group that makes us reflect on how we as a society deal with our darkest selves, I felt th--holy shit! Nazis terrorists are being given comfort by the fucking President, holy shit we need to stop them now because Trump may very well destroy the country! What the fuuuuu--
MagnaderAlpha
Member
"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.
So you would jail the antifa? Would you jail anyone that posts about punching a Nazi in the face?
lightskintwin
Banned
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.
You have to remember freedom of speech isn't like your average law in the United States. It's the First Amendment to the Constitution. Before you implement a specific law against Nazi's, you'd have to amend the Constitution, which takes two thirds vote from the House and Senate . It's highly unlikely that such efforts would be undertaken, just to target one group. Because amending the Constitution is so difficult, it's likely that any efforts to do so, would try to implement language broad enough to encompass all "hate groups" or any future, but as yet unidentified "hate groups." Theoretically, amending the Constitution to say: "Free speech for everyone except Nazis" would avoid a slippery slope, as long as it doesn't start a trend of constantly amending the Constitution to add additional groups.
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.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
How are black people uniquely affected by bicycle laws?
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...olice-bike-tickets-disproportionately/2274729
Tampa police disproportionately stopped black cyclists and cited them in the name of stopping crime
Conciliator
Banned
I was basically with the ACLU on the stuff that included Milo and I am toward a free speech 'fundamentalist,' but as of now it is completely unreasonable to think there is any chance that future white nationalist or 'Unite the Right' rallies will be peaceful protests. Protests get permits, hate mobs don't get permits. These guys are explicitly looking to spark violence and terrorize other citizens. And no, Black Lives Matter is not equivalent in any capacity.
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.
Alright, I read it. Thanks for linking that, btw. I think it brings up some interesting points to consider, and it'll be on my mind as we see more of this stuff unfold. Certainly, there is a broader issue in this country about racial inequality in the justice system. And your link is making the point that the First Amendment is perhaps so neutral, it empowers the status quo to continue being. That's a fair point.
But how can we address that? Especially in a modern context, where we have a completely bonkers media apparatus on one side, and a 2nd Amendment backing a pretty scary culture of violence in the background? I'm not gonna pretend to have an adequate answer for you now, but I simply think eroding the power of the first amendment should be our last resort.
It's our right, too, not just theirs. We need to empower our side to use it. We need people to see and reason right from wrong here. The risk of giving that right up is, it wont come back when well-meaning people need it. When it might be our turn to say things that the government and the status quo doesn't like. We're arguably there already.
rokkerkory
Member
Hate speech is not free speech.
ZackieChan
Member
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.
I think broadening the meaning of "imminently threatening" is probably what most have in mind, when they imagine further limitations on free speech, but the farther away you get from imminently inciting violence, the more questions I have. If a statement doesn't immediately incite violence, how responsible is the statement, if someone who heard it later commits violence? At some point we have to conclude it is only the violent actor that is responsible for what they've done.
Real noble defending people who said they would kill, then ended up killing.
excelsiorlef
Member
Not anywhere else who has hate speech laws but ok.
Then they'll call themselves a Christian group
We'll ban any group that preaches cleansing of one skin color/ethnic bloodline by another.
Ford didn't invent the automobile.
This is drawing some weird parallels to gun control arguments. The restrictions work elsewhere, but when it come to the US, ¯_(ツ_/¯
Yep! Increasingly we keep having to say "in every first world country but the USA" - maybe we should stop considering the USA a first world country at this point.
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.
So I sincerely doubt any potential hate speech law would specifically identify the speech banned.
AntiFacebook
Member
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.
I know the ban restrict people based on their country of origin and not the strength of their religious beliefs,but that's for practical reasons.
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.
I know the ban restrict people based on their country of origin and not the strength of their religious beliefs,but that's for practical reasons.
excelsiorlef
Member
Your tag is super helpful right now.
We call "muslim terrorists" just "terrorists", indeed, the two seem to be synonyms in this country.
And I assume there are already laws for "terrorist speech". The question is how do we get white supremacy under this umbrella?
And I assume there are already laws for "terrorist speech". The question is how do we get white supremacy under this umbrella?
AntiFacebook
Member
Israel is not the only place that suffers from Muslim terrorism,though
IrishNinja
Member
i think you're right; it's a bit of semantics that tons of people on the right don't make time for
the overlap with that crowd & those on about how evolution is just "a theory" must be tremendous
...well, shit
i appreciate the points you're making here on our current administration being allowed to define hate speech, but there's really no need to be condescending & assume anyone who disagrees is "being emotional"
yeah like a lot of things, it's not an absolute: you can't yell fire, threaten people, etc etc. i get that we try to minimize exceptions, but a lot of nazi rhetoric falls under inciting for me, which isn't the same thing.
Why don't they just let the Nazi scum defend their own FoS?
Besides, legislation doesn't stop Nazis.
Bricks, bats, improvised flamethrowers (that was a fucking awesome picture) and the people never giving them a chance to have a platform. Disrupt their meetings, target their members, expose them. That's what stops Nazis.
Anyone in America at this moment who is 'but both sides!' or criticising antifa tactics needs to read German history from 1918-1945 and really, really need to understand that fascism CANNOT be allowed to grow, and it needs to be stamped on wherever it raises its disgusting head.
Also - what 'Muslim ideology'? Islam can be twisted around to fit any bullshit agenda like any other faith. Zionism is a great example of taking a religion and turning it into a creed of apartheid.
Besides, legislation doesn't stop Nazis.
Bricks, bats, improvised flamethrowers (that was a fucking awesome picture) and the people never giving them a chance to have a platform. Disrupt their meetings, target their members, expose them. That's what stops Nazis.
Anyone in America at this moment who is 'but both sides!' or criticising antifa tactics needs to read German history from 1918-1945 and really, really need to understand that fascism CANNOT be allowed to grow, and it needs to be stamped on wherever it raises its disgusting head.
Also - what 'Muslim ideology'? Islam can be twisted around to fit any bullshit agenda like any other faith. Zionism is a great example of taking a religion and turning it into a creed of apartheid.
skullmuffins
Banned
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.
Not sure where this weird driveby anti-ACLU sentiment is coming from. If you don't like that they defend Nazis, just say you don't like they defend Nazis. They spend most of their cash on fighting mass incarceration, and on immigrant and LGBT issues. Permits for racists aren't cutting into the budget.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Again, the Canadian Criminal Code has already solved that one:
If you look at the link you posted:
"Curry isnt exactly misquoted, but his statement was part of a larger point about how, in his view, questions about violence against whites need to be addressed through a historical lens and how blacks need to reclaim conversations about the Second Amendment to highlight their own concerns about protection from race-based violence."
He's pretty clearly covered under those clauses within the broader context of his argument. He's not making a case to incite violence.
So many of the arguments against restrictions on hate speech seem to say "well what about edge case X? We shouldn't try anything," when the obvious answer is to just write edge case X into law, as has been done elsewhere.