|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Again, why? There is no governmental apparatus which I trust to tamper further with the first amendment in any way, never mind actually enforcing a hate speech law. Edit: As for forbidding fascist rallies in the US on safety grounds, that could easily be turned around into a ban on Marxist or civil libertarian assemblies. I understand why people want to ban defamatory language, but regular, non-vulgar language can be used for defamation as easily as the vulgar. It would be better to focus on the problem rather than the symptoms, or else the defamation will just evolve. Fox News places a defamatory spin on common language all the time, and makes up new poo poo like "takers" or "tribalists". Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Aug 13, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:Such a law would definitely go to SCOTUS. Therefore, how can you frame the banning of certain words, devoid of circumstance, on an objective basis? How do you establish a good precedent so the government won't turn it around to ban words they don't agree with? Context means quite a lot, and a person doesn't need to openly throw around epithets to be defamatory. Even innocent words can be warped into weapons. How do we separate defamation from criticism? If only there were other countries with Hate Speech laws that you could base them off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:If only there were other countries with Hate Speech laws that you could base them off. Beauharnais v. Illinois quote:The Court upheld an Illinois law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion." Court membership NYT v. Sullivan quote:First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and remanded. Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:If only there were other countries with Hate Speech laws that you could base them off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
Hate speech laws in the US would include a provision protecting economic classes as well and then we would be pretty much completely hosed. Lets not do hate speech laws here please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Hate speech laws in the US would include a provision protecting economic classes as well and then we would be pretty much completely hosed. Lets not do hate speech laws here please. Yeah I view it the same way I view rewriting the constitution of the US, totally necessary but not worth it due to the bugfuck insane Congress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
I view it as not necessary at all. I think we're all better off when the bigots out themselves. Also I find it particularly loving rich to have a guy from a country without a written constitution telling Americans how to re-write ours. Thank God the world has British people to tell us what to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Hate speech is difficult to prove even in court with hate speech laws in place, such is the case in the Netherlands. In fact, a clause in our constitution which explicitly forbids insulting religion was removed in its entirety because it's an archaic article that could be used by anybody who feels his religious beliefs are ridiculed. Does that mean you can say or insult everyone out there? No, because there's still something called common sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
Are the same posters who are against antifa action for hate speech laws? Is that just because hate speech laws work within the state's monopoly on force?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
I've always felt that whatever you'd want to ban with hate speech laws could be banned using other laws, such as those against inciting violence or whatnot. Then again, I'm not a lawyer or expert in any way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Taeke posted:I've always felt that whatever you'd want to ban with hate speech laws could be banned using other laws, such as those against inciting violence or whatnot. Then again, I'm not a lawyer or expert in any way. I'm quite sure a lot of D&D posts can easily be placed under some sort of hate speech label by people who feel offended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:There is still precedent to deal with, your laws are not ours: Yeah I understand there are differences which is why I said about basing them off them so they'd be able to be adapted for your legislation, rather than just copy and pasting them. Miltank posted:Are the same posters who are against antifa action for hate speech laws? Is that just because hate speech laws work within the state's monopoly on force? I'm for antifa action and hate speech laws, so no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:I view it as not necessary at all. I think we're all better off when the bigots out themselves. I'm going to guess that the reaction of those subjected to hate speech isn't 'Thank god those bigots are being open when abusing me for who I am!' Not going to touch the petty nationalistic dickwaving because that never ends well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:I view it as not necessary at all. I think we're all better off when the bigots out themselves. Wasn't the Magna Carta the first written constitution?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Republicans: Well seeing as the rich are a minority, I don't see why we shouldn't set them up as a protected class. Democrats: Golly gee! We don't necessarily agree with that, but I guess in the spirit of bipartisanship we can come to a compromise. You just agree to hold off on a government shutdown for another six months.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Are the same posters who are against antifa action for hate speech laws? Is that just because hate speech laws work within the state's monopoly on force? On the other hand, there is a lot the state is doing wrong about this. This isn't just about fascism. The U.S. (to just use as an example) has an intense surveillance and counter-terrorist system, but it's very lunk-headed and reactive. Take the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The FBI became aware he was becoming radicalized, and indeed contacted his mother. But there was no attempt to block that process from continuing. It was really just a question of whether Tsarnaev had committed any crimes or not. It wasn't until after he carried out a terrorist attack that the security services moved in, and they did so in a (characteristically) heavy-handed and over-the-top way. Or it's these stupid sting operations where they give a guy a fake bomb and then arrest him. We need to be a lot smarter about this. There really needs to be an effort to identify people before they're fully radicalized, and we need to be comfortable approaching the families and telling them that this is not a good way to go. We need to be able to say: we're concerned that Timmy the 16-year-old is becoming a skinhead, we (really: you) don't want to see this happening, this might cause problems for Timmy. This also means building ties with faith communities, schools and families in programs aimed at stopping far right recruitment. Antifa does this and I understand Britain is experimenting with these kinds of programs (with mixed success). But sometimes Antifa does things which seem like monkey-brained violence that risks playing into the hands of fascists who are seeking to provoke a confrontation since disorder and chaos is ultimately what strengthens them. Blackbird Fly posted:Edit: As for forbidding fascist rallies in the US on safety grounds, that could easily be turned around into a ban on Marxist or civil libertarian assemblies. Most fascist and hate rallies will not meet the standard of imminence. But there are some exceptions like public cross burnings which are seen as an imminent threat a priori. In Norway such an action would be something a black metal band does at a concert or whatever, but in America it is a historically pervasive tactic used by a specific domestic terrorist organization. But that goes back to my first point about tailoring laws based on local circumstances. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Wasn't the Magna Carta the first written constitution? Crameltonian posted:I'm going to guess that the reaction of those subjected to hate speech isn't 'Thank god those bigots are being open when abusing me for who I am!' Not going to touch the petty nationalistic dickwaving because that never ends well. There's also the fact that a majority will never agree to ban its own thoughts from being spoken, so any hate speech law is by definition going to target a political minority. I've never seen anyone in any thread where "America should have hate speech laws" comes up actually address what those laws would have actually targetted as recently as 2008. poo poo, maybe even more recently. Edit: Hate Speech in America in 2003: Get caught protesting Israel abusing the Palestinians? Go to federal prison. No bid COVID fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Or we could just reinvigorate fighting words doctrine and repurpose it through the criminal law so that bashing the fash/racists/homophobes/etc. is an affirmative defense to charges of assault and/or battery. Gets rid of the pesky state action problem (and the problem of trusting the police, often the perpetrators of violence against marginalized people, to enforce laws to protect marginalized groups), allows groups to protect themselves from fascist violence.Omi-Polari posted:Interesting fact is that the reason the U.S. cannot prohibit fascist rallies on public safety grounds is because of a series of Supreme Court cases in the 1910s-1920s involving communists being prohibited from forming groups and putting on rallies, including one case in which a municipality prohibited a communist youth group because the red flags were seen as an incitement to lawlessness and anarchy. The Court ruled these prohibitions unconstitutional except in circumstances where speech would lead to "imminent danger" - which is an incredibly high burden to prove. Really, the burden wasn't that high until Brandenburg in 1969, which was about (what else) the Klan. Until then, the government could gently caress with just about anyone it didn't like if there was even a whiff of potential for violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Wasn't the Magna Carta the first written constitution? Don't know about that but we do have a bill of rights dating to 1689!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Or we could just reinvigorate fighting words doctrine and repurpose it through the criminal law so that bashing the fash/racists/homophobes/etc. is an affirmative defense to charges of assault and/or battery. Gets rid of the pesky state action problem (and the problem of trusting the police, often the perpetrators of violence against marginalized people, to enforce laws to protect marginalized groups), allows groups to protect themselves from fascist violence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Sounds like an awful lot of work to basically legalize public violence. Better hope you can't be accused of uttering "fighting words" next to the protestors out in front of the Planned Parenthood. You're acting like these groups don't already get away with this stuff in the first place. There's a reason why Occupy got broken up by cops, but the same kind of action is lacking at a Tea Bagger rally-- state political violence is still political violence. Realistically, a law about this would have to address relative power too, i.e. calling someone PWT doesn't have the effect that being able to call someone the n word does, because whites have huge amounts of systemic power that blacks don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:Sounds like an awful lot of work to basically legalize public violence. Better hope you can't be accused of uttering "fighting words" next to the protestors out in front of the Planned Parenthood. Hey I've actually been stomped by racists and guess what the police did: gently caress all. Violence is pretty much accepted in the United States so long as its done against "those people," whether they're black or brown or gay or trans*, and I don't see the legal system recognizing that context as particularly injurious to justice. Also, it'd be private violence, not public violence! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You're acting like these groups don't already get away with this stuff in the first place. There's a reason why Occupy got broken up by cops, but the same kind of action is lacking at a Tea Bagger rally-- state political violence is still political violence. Realistically, a law about this would have to address relative power too, i.e. calling someone PWT doesn't have the effect that being able to call someone the n word does, because whites have huge amounts of systemic power that blacks don't. To be fair Occupy groups were actively breaking the law in a way that tea party protests weren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:There's a reason why Occupy got broken up by cops, but the same kind of action is lacking at a Tea Bagger rally The Tea Baggers paid for the proper permits, dispersed at the agreed upon time except in a few rare cases where they overstayed by a few hours, and certainly never tried to set up actual permanent encampments. That is the reason why nothing happened to them with the cops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
At the risk of furthering a derail of a thread about fascism in Europe by continuing to talk about non-fascists in the U.S., "breaking the law" is not carte blanche justification for the police to start cracking skulls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You're acting like these groups don't already get away with this stuff in the first place. There's a reason why Occupy got broken up by cops, but the same kind of action is lacking at a Tea Bagger rally-- state political violence is still political violence. Realistically, a law about this would have to address relative power too, i.e. calling someone PWT doesn't have the effect that being able to call someone the n word does, because whites have huge amounts of systemic power that blacks don't. The Warszawa posted:Hey I've actually been stomped by racists and guess what the police did: gently caress all. Violence is pretty much accepted in the United States so long as its done against "those people," whether they're black or brown or gay or trans*, and I don't see the legal system recognizing that context as particularly injurious to justice. The problem is that if you live somewhere where the cops just won't do a loving thing about racist gangs, I bet they *will* act if it stops being one-sided, and somehow the prosecutor will just happen to believe that you started it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:It's because the Tea Baggers are a bunch of stupid old pieces of poo poo that typically abide by the letter of the law and don't really scare anyone by challenging the accepted power structure. If we had a fascist party the size of the Tea Party that would be a loving nightmare, but as it is the average member is in their 50s and in bad physical shape. Basically, movements full of dumb old people just aren't as scary as movements full of angry young people, and for good reason. Cynic that I am, I'm tempted to reply that given the power/wealth dynamic of this country, they pretty much are doing their job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:That really sucks and I'm sorry it happened to you. The actual best solution would be to have the police actually do their loving jobs. Sure, systemic racism is a thing and the police more often than not work to further it rather than against it. What I was proposing was a shift in legal doctrine to allow for a more effective solution than hoping this stops being the case, at least until it does stop being the case. Call it a "civilian oversight committee" - if the police won't protect marginalized groups, it is counter to the interests of justice to punish those groups for protecting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:if the police won't protect marginalized groups, it is counter to the interests of justice to punish those groups for protecting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:The only way forward is for the rest of us to force the government to do what is, morally, its job. That sounds nice as hell, any ideas on how we do it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
I mean, I think we have been. A black president and gay marriage would have been unthinkable 50 years ago. The Klan was a lot bigger 50 years ago, too. Clearly I use "we" very loosely here, but I think we need hate speech legislation less than we have at any other point in the last 50 years. Edit: I always think it's funny when I read these threads about "X problem in Europe" and somehow they turn into "European posters tell the US how to rewrite its constitution because Europe." No bid COVID fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
Yep. But also it's worth it for Americans to give Europeans some wider latitude, I think. Anti-fascism is going to take different forms depending on where you are. Violence might be a necessity in one place where it's not appropriate in other places. For one, there are actual fascist gangs and militant party cadres of actual fascist parties in some parts of Europe that Americans just don't have to deal with. The Ku Klux Klan is more of a joke than anything these days; a lot of their members are not even physically capable of administering their insulin let alone commit hate crimes. The issue of who controls "the streets" doesn't even apply in many American cities because everyone drives everywhere. (The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is 26 times the physical size of Berlin, and almost everyone drives. In Berlin you might be on the same U-Bahn train as a racist skinhead. Berliners, tell me if I'm exaggerated things?) I remember attending an anti-fascist protest against the National Socialist Movement. This is a neo-Nazi group with an estimated 400 total members, or one out of 750,000 Americans. It is the largest neo-Nazi organization in the country. The odds of encountering one of those guys in my lifetime outside of a planned protest is pretty low. And after the rally, with a lot of chanting "our streets!", everyone got in their cars and went home. They may have even driven past each other on the highway, how would you know? But go to the Balkans and you still have American soldiers patrolling around because ultra-nationalist, ethnic violence could erupt. People were put on trains and ethnically cleansed from their communities in 1999. There were people who saw scenes of people being forced onto trains by men with guns in "Schindler's List" and several years later they were literally forced on trains by Serb gunmen and dumped into Macedonia. It's a different ballgame, so to speak, in some parts. And Kosovo is an extreme example. But just look at Portugal. It's important for Americans who may have never even seen a skinhead before to understand that many Europeans are much more sensitive about the subject and have more immediate experiences. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Here's some scary poo poo from the country with the most direct form of democracy in the world. Well that's creepy as gently caress. Can anyone who knows more about the situation in Switzerland shed some more light on what/who's behind this? Like, is it just the exact sort of racist bullshit mixed with neo-liberal FYGM assholishness you'd expect from a cursory look, or are there even worse undercurrents to this that people not very well versed in Swiss history/culture might not know? (Not that I'm trying to interrupt the absolutely riveting, and surely on-topic discussion about how unjust it was that people couldn't just leave Oswald Mosley alone, or asking if anti- Ernie Muppari fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:(Not that I'm trying to interrupt the absolutely riveting, and surely on-topic discussion about how unjust it was that people couldn't just leave Oswald Mosley alone, or asking if
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Thankfully, our fash is useless. This was the last time the Partido Nacional Renovador (National Renovation Party) was in the news, in 2007. They put up several outdoors in Lisbon, shown below: Enough immigration Nationalism is the solution Have a nice trip (next to plane) Portugal to the Portuguese Comedians Gato Fedorento immediately made a fake version of their own and placed it right next to the original.  More immigration! The best way to annoy foreigners is to make them live in Portugal Welcome! (next to plane) With the Portuguese we can't do it Nationalism is dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:Thankfully, our fash is useless. This was the last time the Partido Nacional Renovador (National Renovation Party) was in the news, in 2007. They put up several outdoors in Lisbon, shown below:   What the hell hahah that's brilliant
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:Thankfully, our fash is useless. This was the last time the Partido Nacional Renovador (National Renovation Party) was in the news, in 2007. They put up several outdoors in Lisbon, shown below: Their leader is also someone who lived in Brazil since his youth and only returned recently to make the party which seriously seems like a money making scheme. Their members are near mental retardation. They're mainly composed of people expelled from CDS-PP (which is quite an achievement in it's own), people who've been robbed by a black guy once, making them racist forever and an incredible amount of heavy metal fans who are made fun of at school for wearing all black and korn t-shirts. They tried an anti-gay adoption march a few times back, it was met with laughter, they tried to join in on the protests of the last years and they've always been kicked out, they tried a hunger strike in downtown Lisbon and not even the homeless gave a poo poo. They also gave up on showing up in most areas of the south side of the Tagus for obvious (  ) reasons.Our Fascism was never the National-Socialist type they emulate anyways. This is what makes it so dangerous and disturbing in my opinion. Our fash isn't the black shirt, thug marches that praise violence and martial power. It's corporatism and paternalism, it's knowing that the Portuguese are poor and lauding that as a virtue, as the thing the Portugal is and always will be. The rich are rich and the poor are poor because that's life and it will always be that way. Any attempt at change will just make it worse. It's the Holy house of Mercy extending it's arm and giving soup to the poors and seeing the capitalist as the merit hard-worker gipper that he is, who saved every dime to reach the top of the chain, just like you will one day! The reason why so many knee-jerk leftists call the right in Portugal fascists isn't the same reason why U.S. liberals call conservatives fascists,it's because people like Cavaco and Coelho have the same ethics, morals and ideology as Salazar in somewhat changed rhetoric (while Salazar believed in economic stagnation to avoid liberal and socialist influence these two belive in economic stagnation so they can pillage everything they can to their comrades  ).We will never accept fascism in Portugal, but we sure will accept every and all humiliation and accept it as natural of our miserable lives. And about the discussion a few pages back about how antifas are as bad as facists. You're nuts. The homosexuals in Russia should be organizing and defending themselves. The idea that they should just sit idly by in the moral high ground is just hilariously naive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Mans posted:Our Fascism was never the National-Socialist type they emulate anyways. This is what makes it so dangerous and disturbing in my opinion. Our fash isn't the black shirt, thug marches that praise violence and martial power. It's corporatism and paternalism, it's knowing that the Portuguese are poor and lauding that as a virtue, as the thing the Portugal is and always will be. The rich are rich and the poor are poor because that's life and it will always be that way. Any attempt at change will just make it worse. It's the Holy house of Mercy extending it's arm and giving soup to the poors and seeing the capitalist as the merit hard-worker gipper that he is, who saved every dime to reach the top of the chain, just like you will one day! That's not fascism. Heads up: an ideology that has "bad opinions" is not automatically fascist, no matter how repugnant those opinions might be. Fascism is a very specific set of beliefs tied to an ideology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:That's not fascism. Heads up: an ideology that has "bad opinions" is not automatically fascist, no matter how repugnant those opinions might be. Fascism is a very specific set of beliefs tied to an ideology. Not really. Read any book about Mussolini and you'll soon realize how inconsistent he loving was. He did everything in his power to deny his pacifist movement when Italy invaded Tripoli when he got involved in state violence against the Greek islands shortly after he got into office. Libertarians, conservatives, and fascists all hold one thing in common: They're reactionaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:That's not fascism. Heads up: an ideology that has "bad opinions" is not automatically fascist, no matter how repugnant those opinions might be. Fascism is a very specific set of beliefs tied to an ideology. Fascism in power can mean up to three things: Parties directly inspired by the fascist state of Italy, of which a really small portion historical states enter, like Nazi Germany or Hungary. Parties with an actual ideology based on Facism, which is pretty much reduced again to the above mentined parties Far-right authoritarian states who reach power as a way to stop socialist\lefitst organizing and rise in popularity and who use brutal methods to maintain the status quo and stop the left in their tracks. In Portuguese tradition, i.e. the ones eating the clubs of the PIDE and being sent to Tarrafal, the third option is widely regarded as close enough to fascism and only someone with a stick up his rear end would actually argue against such a thing. You can label them all you want, in pratical terms they were all considered fascist for the reason they reached power, they way they maintained power and the people to whom they worked for were all the same favored or hated classes, even if in particular areas there were specific racial\political hatreds that differed somewhat (but even if Portugal or Spain didn't hate the Jews as much as the Germans they certainly didn't like them walking around their capitals). And yes, that also means all regimes of Eastern Europe and Cuba were Stalinist in nature. No one would argue against this either, unless they wanted to nitpick to a ridiculous degree. edit: We call Pinochet a fash in our circles, hope that doesn't bother you 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:59
|
|