Seriously, who is saying this? Who is saying that the KKK shouldn't be dealt with??
Not "don't deal with it" as in the group. More like "don't deal with it" in terms of the over-aching situation. With these sorts, it's usually something like "not this time. Maybe next time." And then when next time comes, rinse and repeat. The thing is, for them, "next time" never comes.
That you've deemed your cause noble and just is fantastic. Every instance of this sort of idea being implemented in the past, whether government-sanctioned or mob run or mob run turning into government-sanctioned or vice versa, has acted under the auspices of nobility and virtuousness of the cause. Righteousness.
As for the last part from yourself, the poster you quoted, and a few others, we're a mere hop and skip away from "well why don't you support this idea? you're not in favor of protecting racists, are you? you're not... you're not
one of them, are you?". We've seen this movie before: replace racists with Communists, then Nazis and the Japanese, then Communists again for decades, then Islamic terrorists. And that's only the history of the 20th Century and only in America.
It's proof positive that the political spectrum is not a straight line but a circle, and the extremes have more in common with each other, while remaining opposed, than they do with the less extremes on their respective sides.
It's terrifying thought and total anathema to modern civil society. When your idea boils down to "you know,
Robespierre was on to something, but the execution (pardon the pun!) was a bit rough..." you need to step back and seriously evaluate your philosophies, ideals, and core values.
EDIT: Before the above is misrepresented, the poster quoted has moved beyond discussing the specifics of this story and discussed more general ideas, and I responded in-kind.
In this particular case, the idea is good. It is not bringing harm to marginalized, disenfranchised or innocent groups of people. In this particular case, the idea is to publicly list individuals part of organizations that encourage behavior that directly harms marginalized, disenfranchised groups. No different than listing a sex offender's status so the family across the block can make sure they don't have their children play around that person's yard.
Yes I believe my idea is righteous, precisely because I'm aware of previous attempts at implementation of vaguely similar concepts that have gone awry, learned why they were wrong and make sure my particular take is for bettering the lives of certain individuals without harming or degrading the lives of others who may not be negatively affected like said individuals, and only going as far as to let the public be aware of yet other individuals who exist to hurt and ruin the lives of the first sort directly. If that makes me come off as an ego-centrist, then I don't know what else to say. I just know that my values are in the right place, and I'm not demanding anything extreme.
And again, no, I am definitely NOT demanding random internet vigilantism or mob mentality lynching. I could never live with myself in condoning that sort of behavior. Which is why the gov't should take this into their own hands. Granted, and thanks to another poster's post in the thread I'm aware of how well the FBI has been handling the Klan in particular, so it makes sense to implement the sort of features I'm suggesting if simply to make their efforts even more successful, with the Klan and other hate groups.
Pretty tough not to invoke Godwin here. Suffice it to say, governments have been making lists of unsavory people since writing was first developed and all those making said lists thought it was the right thing to do at the time.
Do you really want to empower the government to create public lists of folks who have done nothing contrary to the laws of the various states or nation? What about that pesky first amendment? There is a pretty good chance that something you enjoy today will run afoul of the social mores of the future, hopefully you won't end up on a list.
They can continue to practice hate speech all they want; that isn't being taken away from them at all. What IS being taken away is the level of indifference from the government that tactically implies that they, on some level, condone that behavior. The government doesn't condone terrorism; that's why they list them on Most Wanted list and plaster their faces on televisions.
I'm not calling for the FBI to swat teams to literally burst down people's doors, arrest them or worst simply because they are identified as members of a hate group. But citizens deserve to know who these people are so that they can adjust social interactions with them accordingly, and maybe through being ostracized, some of these people change their ways. That's ultimately the desired goal.
I understand now. You're a socialist who thinks the problem with the legal system is that the lawyers make too much money.
Ouch, the 'S' word! But wouldn't you say that some selective tenants of socialism, if implemented wisely, would be effective in a functioning government? I do.
Of course your proposal won't "get rid of privatized practice firms completely," because you'll still have defense firms flush with money from insurance companies and their corporate clients. Only, now you'll have individuals represented by government-provided plaintiff's attorneys who are limited in how much money and time they can spend advocating for their client's case going up against these well-funded defense attorneys. And if you don't think this is how it will work, please look at all the resources and manpower given to public defenders' offices across the country.
A monetary cap on the amount of money either side can use in their defense would solve that, just like how the political process today would be better off if Super PACS didn't exist.
The defendant's... employer? That's absolutely ridiculous. How on earth you can think that this is justifiable I will never know. What you're proposing is that we render someone who was ever in a hate group essentially unemployable. Does the government now have to step in and put a roof over this person's head? Take care of their family? Take care of their kids? Do they get to file for disability on the basis of having been in a hate group? Or do we also make these people ineligible for government assistance? I understand that such people aren't really deserving of much empathy, but you need to think through your proposals here.
Does the "employer pay" method only apply where the defendant was a member of a hate group? What if they lacked insurance for their car, got drunk and hit somebody leaving that person in need of expensive care for the rest of their life? The employer on the hook if they knew their employee liked to get sauced? Are alcoholics now unemployable? What if the person fell asleep at the wheel of their car and injured someone? The employer on the hook if they knew their employee had trouble staying awake?
If an alcoholic's problem was so bad it messed up their record with multiple DUIs, and if their job involved being on the road, yet the employer still hired them without that person showing they've been sober, then yes, the company should be held accountable in case that employee killed or injured someone in a car accident. That kind of stuff is standard in background checks anyway. In fact I'm almost willing to bet that companies have been held liable for exactly this sort of thing in the past.
As for the first part, if a person went a decent amount of time no longer being a member of the group, then that shouldn't be used against them in preventing them from getting a job. Of course, all of that also depends on the job in question. Let's say they were in a hate group that, say, despised puppies. They left just a year ago, but psyche evals (if they've taken them) show that perhaps there is some lingering animosity towards puppies. They now get a job as a vet fixing up...puppies. I don't think that person is qualified for the job, and neither would the employer with those facts at their disposal.
He is LITERALLY proposing thought crime laws.
No, I'm not. I'm proposing penalties for those in hate groups who have produced activity that was since proven to have aided in the detriment of harming another individual's life in some way that is measurable, either physically, emotionally (severe trauma or stress leading to illness) or financially.
That means the offending person would actually have needed to done something other than think of something in their head, obviously.
There's no way the legal system can be used either in defense or in reparation of the damage done to innocent people targeted by Anonymous.
When you've seen members of Anonymous taken to court it's been over corporate or government espionage. The FBI and DoJ aren't going to help individuals falsely accused of being KKK members nor is there a specific person against which to take legal action.
Even in the event that a specific individual could be found, the person affected would have to prove to have standing in court (i.e., irrefutable evidence of specific actions taken by said individual and quantifiable damages) and the trial would only be civil (i.e. monetary) as opposed to criminal.
Innocent people will have their lives ruined by faceless mobs taking vigilante justice. Just say you're okay with this rather than attempting to make excuses.
Again, I'm
not calling for vigilante justice. That's not even in my realm of logical calls of action.
What I'm saying is, IF there were methods set up for the FBI and DoJ to help individuals falsely accused, and IF specific peoples could be found (if they can find people using TOR clients they can find these other sorts) at reasonable cost and time, it SHOULD be a feasible idea worth implementing.
So no, I'm definitely
not okay with what you're thinking I'm okay with. I'm just saying the idea of holding people in hate groups accountable by placing their identities out publicly is a good idea. It just needs equally good execution.
the current legal system works on the basis that the guilty have to defend themselves (through an attorney) against an allegation of a crime. You're turning that around. Assume everyone is guilty and the innocent can work it out. It is nonsense.
No no no. I'm saying that if person A is called out as being a member of a hate group by person B, then person A is able to take person B to court for defamation of character. If person B's evidence defeats person A's rebuttals to that evidence, then person B's instance stands. If person A's rebuttal defeats B's, then person B has to remove the defamation, issue a public apology, and make due with recourse for person A.
It's not actually much different than a typical civil suit, because this would be on the level of
civil court, not
criminal court.
Notice how there's a lack of specificity in this plan? Who are the proper people with proper values? Who defines what is proper? These ideas never work because humans are flawed.
Well, not those who are known to publicly harbor racial bias, for starters.
I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but what I'm getting at is nowhere near a witch-hunt. You don't call the gov't's requiring sex offenders be publicly listed a witch hunt, do you? Well, neither would this, because it's literally the exact same thing I'm suggesting. Just replace "sex offender" with "member of hate group" and there 'ya go.
You seem to be under the illusion that the KKK is still some incredibly powerful organization.
Actually I'm aware of how weak they are. What isn't weak, though, is institutional racism, and it benefits by the mere existence of groups like the KKK, even if it is a shell of its former self.
You want to end institutional racism? You can't ignore the KKK just because it's on its death bed. It won't go away unless you take the next step. Once you do that institutional racism won't have something even worst around to look good by comparison, and it'll be more efficiently dealt with.
