|
Push El Burrito posted:The problem with taking away free speech from Nazis is how do you know who to punch if they don't say anything? This.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Any useful moral calculus has to consider the interplay of real-world cause and effect to be worth a drat. For instance, fighting to give nazis a venue to exercise their free speech may also foreseeably give them the opportunity to attack, hurt, and kill people. You have to weigh that cost against the benefit of preserving your pristine first amendment ideal. Enabling nazis to go hogwild because it's the Free Speech thing to do, then trying to wash your hands of the destruction you helped them wreak, is some morality-in-a-vacuum Immanuel Kant rear end categorical imperative bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
Snazzy Frocks posted:im not going to say the counter protesters did or did not do anything but they sure as hell do a good job of signal boosting the alt-right people's message thanks to the extra media attention they draw You're not going to say that but you sure do for sure want to say it, huh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
I agree that in an ideal world Nazi free-speech shouldn't be a thing. I also think in the real world if you could ever convince our white right leaning government to implement such a thing you'd immediately see them tag something like BLM with the same treatment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean for gently caress's sake though the country that gave us Nazis handles Nazis better than a country that fought the Nazis You know, it's nice to think this thought and all, and I'm sure there's lots of 'gently caress the facists' sentiment after the fact - but there were nazi sympathizers prior to the US entering the war, and I'm willing to bet a lot of young folks joined up not just to follow their shining ideals of killing nazis
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Ghetto SuperCzar posted:I agree that in an ideal world Nazi free-speech shouldn't be a thing. I don't think anyone expects Trump to do anything good, ever, but this thread right now is a good example of how people need to be educated in the fact that you can't just pretend that Nazi movements go away if you ignore them. Until people realise this, there's no hope to get legislation against Nazis passed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:You know, it's nice to think this thought and all, and I'm sure there's lots of 'gently caress the facists' sentiment after the fact - but there were nazi sympathizers prior to the US entering the war, and I'm willing to bet a lot of young folks joined up not just to follow their shining ideals of killing nazis Stop ruining my jokes with your historical facts, I know that we were like half the inspiration for Hitler's ideas with our sterilization of minorities and Jim Crow, but that isn't funny. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
In fact, the Nazis were ignored and now we're here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:Their methods are definitely a start though, and better than these morons masturbating about how great Nazi speech is Certainly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:58
|
|
JawKnee posted:You know, it's nice to think this thought and all, and I'm sure there's lots of 'gently caress the facists' sentiment after the fact - but there were nazi sympathizers prior to the US entering the war, and I'm willing to bet a lot of young folks joined up not just to follow their shining ideals of killing nazis He's talking post 1945 though. Edit. Derp, missed the point there.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 08:58
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Enabling nazis to go hogwild because it's the Free Speech thing to do, then trying to wash your hands of the destruction you helped them wreak, is some morality-in-a-vacuum Immanuel Kant rear end categorical imperative bullshit. 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:The problem with taking away free speech from Nazis is how do you know who to punch if they don't say anything? If they don't say or do anything that lets me find out they're Nazis I'm perfectly happy to let them keep being unpunched. I mean, can't get fairer than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
It's good to see the Obamacare hipster photo still getting some use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
fakeedit: Thread moves fast. Is it bar close? Steam servers down? I dislike the genre, but a good portion of this is split on descriptive and normative, how things are vs how they should be. Please don't take describing the ACLU's principles or the current state of 1A law as endorsements of them. As with mcmagic's fakeassange tweet-correcting bullshit keeps conversations tethered to some form of reality. I do not know which, if any, of the subposts were aimed at me, but laying out why the Nazis were allowed to march does not mean I approve of them doing so, nor that I empathize more with them than their victims. It also requires immense historical illiteracy and complete failure of imagination to believe that today's suppression of minority (upper and lowercase 'm') rights is comparable to what it'd be like if 1A was narrowed. Without encroaching on antifathreadspace: I think that those who bottled the EDL into irrelevance are loving heroes and would love for that blueprint to be followed here, but our gun laws make that suicidal. A sane implementation of 2A would do more to allow the quashing of this naziresurgence than narrowing 1A, without the collateral damage of loving over disenfranchised groups under the power of conservative governments/institutions every time they reach power. Today was a continuation of the modern renaissance of the most horrific terror campaign this country has ever endured, made all the worse because it is continually aided and abetted by those within our government. It was the worst attack since Dylan Roof, and worse than any domestic terror attacks that occurred in the decade prior to that. My fervent hope is that the legacy of today's victims will be the eventual quashing of these terrorists. I will settle for trying to make sure that laws, in honor of the victims, aren't used to jail and silence their allies. Drifter posted:Surely UF can claim it is a safety hazard or some poo poo? I get that the university is heavily funded by the government, but come the gently caress on. Charge the group wanting to rent things exorbitant security fees since they speak of intolerance and the removal of agency of other peaceful human beings. Here we get into the heckler's veto. The en banc ruling of Bible Believers lays things out nicely, and Popehat lawsplains it nicely as well. The majority and popehat, obviously, are coming at this from a certain point of view, but both cover the salient factors well. What it comes down to is this: Strict scrutiny is applied to 1A cases. What this means is that while the state has a compelling interest in maintaining the peace, it must do so with the least restrictive impact on 1A rights. For instance, when Charlottesville tried to relocate Kessler due to the size and nature of the protest, the courts found that the state had shown no evidence that they were incapable of keeping the order at the original site. That they utterly failed to do so is a burden that VA, Cville, and the police must bear and will end up subjecting them to a cavalcade of deserved lawsuits and abuse. We, along with Rage Against The Machine, know exactly why this was destined to go pearshaped... but allowing the government to suppress speech with the justification that they're unwilling to protect it goes to much darker places, very rapidly. As it comes to UF, this leaves it in a peculiar position. They have two options. They can admit that, as a university and with the support of the state, protecting their student body is too heavy a burden to bear. Or they can host Spencer. It's tough to justify the former given the crowds attracted by Gator Football, so they've gone with the latter. This is from the heckler's side (the protest/counterprotest dynamic is too dangerous). It gets less clear for individuals involved-it may be possible to prevent those with records for violence at prior protests from attending and in many cases doing so would likely violate their parole. For those without specific records, go through the exercise of crafting language that would ban attendees (or Spencer specifically) based on the affiliations of his supporters that cannot be easily (if cynically) turned back against BLM for past or current gang affiliations of its membership. Condiv posted:couldn't they just charge the realistic security costs of the event? considering there's gonna be nazis, violence, etc? WampaLord posted:I certainly hope so, they should be doing everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen. As with "Guns are allowed, bullets are $25,000 each" or defunding planned parenthood, the courts generally find that making a right prohibitively expensive to exercise is the same as denying it outright. If all student groups aren't made to foot the same category (if not magnitude) of expenses as the ones inviting Spencer, they'll get slapped down. What I expect to see in the future is that schools will require student groups to handle those things, while finding a way to foot the bill for normal operating costs (providing an annual grant to each officially chartered group, for instance). It's an end around that will need to be adapted after a few legal challenges, but I expect that is the path forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
This isn't even a joke, this is just the functional outcome of arguing in favor of essentially unbound public free speech rights for Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
there is no chance I'm reading that huge screed at 1am
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
e: This day sucks I'm going to go look at pictures of dogs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
yikes d&d i guess i'll just let yall echo chamber yourselves some more about punching and yelling the nazis away then my bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:there is no chance I'm reading that huge screed at 1am It's a pretty good screed though. Paracaidas' effort posts have been just about the only free speech discussion worth reading in a number of pages. (See: muon vs other dumb reductionists who happen to disagree with him)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:18
|
|
|
Nazis have the right to pain and their own death. Empowering their rhetoric endangers the rights and lives of others. How many goddamn Charlottesvilles, Auschwitz, etc do you need to get this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
quote:
I wonder if she's referring to her son or Trump with that last line...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I wonder if she's referring to her son or Trump with that last line... Friend Ben is a friend to all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
CrazySalamander posted:... I come into this thread and people are advocating against the first amendment. The reason why the ACLU defends lovely people that everyone hates is that those lovely people everyone hates set the precedent for what the government can do to people it doesn't like. Guess who tends to get the shaft when congress is pretty much owned by corporations? Liberals. Damaging the first amendment is the ultimate leftist circular firing squad. no one's advocating for damaging the first amendment. we're advocating that the standard that's currently used against black people actually be used against violent white people like KKK members and nazis. hth Paracaidas posted:As with "Guns are allowed, bullets are $25,000 each" or defunding planned parenthood, the courts generally find that making a right prohibitively expensive to exercise is the same as denying it outright. If all student groups aren't made to foot the same category (if not magnitude) of expenses as the ones inviting Spencer, they'll get slapped down. What I expect to see in the future is that schools will require student groups to handle those things, while finding a way to foot the bill for normal operating costs (providing an annual grant to each officially chartered group, for instance). It's an end around that will need to be adapted after a few legal challenges, but I expect that is the path forward. what if the bullets actually cost $25,000 each? are they supposed to subsidized? in the case of nazi richard spencer giving a speech to a big group of nazis, security will actually cost a ton, and I'm arguing they should charge the realistic costs for that security (which would naturally be unaffordable cause of how violent nazis are).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
CrazySalamander posted:... I come into this thread and people are advocating against the first amendment. The reason why the ACLU defends lovely people that everyone hates is that those lovely people everyone hates set the precedent for what the government can do to people it doesn't like. Guess who tends to get the shaft when congress is pretty much owned by corporations? Liberals. Damaging the first amendment is the ultimate leftist circular firing squad. Ironically all the way back in early 2015 I was not only predicting the violence we are now experiencing but I predicted that said violence would inspire a free speech debate that "would make the present gun control debate look positively quaint". I have no idea how this debate is going to end up but I feel quite certain that we are only now seeing the very early skirmishes of a massive new front in the culture war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Hey white people of America, maybe it's time to have a loving conversation with your kids about their politics. You know, just a little checkup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:Ironically all the way back in early 2015 I was not only predicting the violence we are now experiencing but I predicted that said violence would inspire a free speech debate that "would make the present gun control debate look positively quaint". I have no idea how this debate is going to end up but I feel quite certain that we are only now seeing the very early skirmishes of a massive new front in the culture war. Or the government could do an end run around the subject entirely and do what they did in the 90's. They just kill and imprison them. I say this not as a fan of the idea, but I am noting that targeting ultra right wing hate and religious groups was a thing back then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
CrazySalamander posted:e: Nice edit https://twitter.com/the_ironsheik/status/896572215189229568
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Hey white people of America, maybe it's time to have a loving conversation with your kids about their politics. You know, just a little checkup. A lot of them have taken the "gently caress politics, both sides are the same" stance for so long they don't know what's even going on. My parents have become more politically aware since the election, both of them are in their mid-late '50s and were born in the '60s, and they're still shocked by the poo poo that the Republicans were doing 5 years ago, let alone now. They keep asking me how this happened and no one cared and I tell them I was trying to tell them about it when it happened and they didn't give a poo poo. You can't have a conversation when you lack the vocabulary to even start, especially if your kid is already really politically active.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Snazzy Frocks posted:yikes d&d i guess i'll just let yall echo chamber yourselves some more about punching and yelling the nazis away then my bad don't let the door hit your sorry rear end on your way out GreyjoyBastard posted:It's a pretty good screed though. counterpoint: muon thinks freedom of speech is absolute (it's not) and that the ACLU supports absolute freedom of speech (it doesn't, like lol just look up their stance on child porn) so if you want to talk about reductionists
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I too am an 8 year old who believes that Nazis are like the monster under my bed, if I don't think about them and no one brings they'll just go away! It's like disease immunity. Once you get it you're more prepared to keep it from popping up again. America had more than it's fair share of fascists and supremacists prior to WW2. And eugenics was at least partially also an American concept. But Germany saw good and well the economic and societal devastation what happens when those sort of people take power and wrote laws to help ensure that it never happened again. America by contrast has kind of forgotten a lot of that stuff, by all appearances. Probably because it's harder to take a look at your own failings when the guys next door had a period of history where they literally went on a genocidal killing spree in the name of some of the same common trend in beliefs. If it helps, try to keep in mind that until it was publicly revealed (Without a shred of doubt, because even before that there were rumblings of genocidal camps being set up in Europe. They just got shouted down as being propaganda.) that the death camps existed there were still people and companies that believed Germany had the "right ideas" about what to do with anyone who wasn't white as snow or was on a list of acceptable targets to attack. The only thing that made them back down was the sheer horror from the public at large of what the end result of that sort of philosophy leads too. And in many cases it was more out of self preservation than any real revocation of their beliefs. Hence why we ended up with holocaust deniers and such. Archonex fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
Does free speech give you the right to commit treason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You can't have a conversation when you lack the vocabulary to even start, especially if your kid is already really politically active. Yeah. This. Remember that the alt-right gained momentum early on due to the internet and old people don't really understand the internet and almost certainly don't understand internet subcultures. These subcultures are nearly impenetrable to outsiders. The parents really didn't stand a chance if someone gets hooked up into one of these subcultures. Especially if their child is already a weird outsider.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Does free speech give you the right to commit treason? only if you're white
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
stone cold posted:counterpoint: muon thinks freedom of speech is absolute (it's not) and that the ACLU supports absolute freedom of speech (it doesn't, like lol just look up their stance on child porn) That was his point, that I was also being a reductionist. In any case, you've inferred something that isn't true about what I believe. That said: choosing to present my view in this context was a poor decision on my part, and I am to blame for not properly explaining my beliefs. I will leave that to Paracaidas as he is a much better communicator than I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
Hiding the protection of outright hate speech and calls to violence and death behind 'well if we prosecute this the government'll go after BLM/Liberals/Socialists/insert-group-here' is loving cowardice, plain and simple. You know how you stop the government from going after vulnerable groups while making sure to suppress utter shitheads that deal in blood and death like this? Don't elect shitheads that resonate with the prior-mentioned shitheads, and if your shithead-alarm starts going off when near an elected official, work to remove them from power. Research your candidates, help inform others, and make sure the word gets out that 'this cockfuck wants Nazis to be able to assemble, pass it on!' Why, it's almost like it's a proper responsibility to be politically aware and active in society! lovely people hide behind the First Amendment not because it's the bastion of free speech, but because they know that people are so loving terrified of the big bad government. As if it were some kind of thoughtless machine that only reads punchcards or something. BEEP BOOP PERSON SAID CONTROVERSIAL THING. MUST ELIMINATE. DISREGARD CONTEXT. BEEP BOOP Government is run by human beings, and if we could elect human beings that also don't happen to be dumpster fires, there would be actionable nuance and consideration and guidelines to help distinguish controversial but ultimately harmless speech from loving NAZI RHETORIC. It begins with responsibility though, people have to be willing to look into each others' eyes and actually discuss politics and shame people with racist and hateful views. Companies and shops need to stop serving people that work with people that drive hatred and foster violence. Everyone has this loving idiotic gentleman's agreement to look the other way or 'agree to disagree' in order to keep things from getting too heated. All that does is kick the can down the road, and now we're dealing with the tetanus of kicking the rusty edge of a really old can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Yeah. This. Remember that the alt-right gained momentum early on due to the internet and old people don't really understand the internet and almost certainly don't understand internet subcultures. These subcultures are nearly impenetrable to outsiders. I agree. I'm super lucky that my progression was from conventionally conservative to far left, because I was pretty much the exact demographic for these type of people, few friends until the end of high school, socially withdrawn, depressed, extremely nerdy, and with a chip on my shoulder. Thankfully, I came of age under Obama instead of this cretin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Goffer posted:robocops take on nazis "Stooooop! Stooooop!" I guess even a blizzard is made of snowflakes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree. I'm super lucky that my progression was from conventionally conservative to far left, because I was pretty much the exact demographic for these type of people, few friends until the end of high school, socially withdrawn, depressed, extremely nerdy, and with a chip on my shoulder. Still think if you want to cut off the recruitment for hate groups, improve access to psychological help, community building and participation for young people, and just anything as an alternative to sitting on front of the computer after your parents stop paying attention when you turn twelve. Lord of the Flies has been going on daily for years online, and no one cares about young people except as sources of revenue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree. I'm super lucky that my progression was from conventionally conservative to far left, because I was pretty much the exact demographic for these type of people, few friends until the end of high school, socially withdrawn, depressed, extremely nerdy, and with a chip on my shoulder. Whenever I hear about how white supremacists recruit it's often from either white street kids or more recently white nerdy kids. They're not going anywhere. Their towns are dying. No one gives a poo poo about them. Every day they look at a dead end job and a dead end life and poo poo is not going well for them. Hate groups give them a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging. They tell them that their woes are not their fault (sometimes true) and that it's people from other races who are bringing them down (not true, but easy to swallow). White hate is great at recruiting because there's a lot of disaffected white youth in America. To them everyone looks like they're getting a leg up save for them. There are women's shelters, there are groups that support this or that race or this or that religion, but not white men specifically. There are groups that support them tangentially such as the church, but that's not their mission and the church isn't for everyone. These young men are often the beneficiaries of racism, but they don't really see it or if they do they can just stay quiet and passively enjoy the fruits of their labor. However there are racist groups that support white men. They groom and support them. They give them purpose. They've also so thoroughly poisoned the well that other groups wouldn't dare support white men only. So they fill a vacuum that probably should be filled by some non-profit just like there are such groups for women or this or that race specifically. Peoples' motivations aren't particularly complicated. They adopt sets of ethics that empower them. If you're working a poo poo job and have no prospects and you're socially awkward or have a rap sheet or you're homeless these guys are always looking for disaffected white youth. They're always recruiting and their message is tempting because they offer pride and community and hope and direction to young white men who have none. They're always going to exist so long as the original problem exists. They surge and recede with the times, but the root problems never go away so they always can come back. They're patient and ruthless and can accept losses, because disaffected white men are a renewable resource. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Condiv posted:you can't even handle this argument, introducing another one where you misinterpret and ignore everything doesn't sound like a good idea to me It's possible that I've completely misread you. Your unwillingness to engage with the actual information put in front of you (say, ACLU's principles), and consistent dodging make me skeptical. Condiv posted:paracaidas apparently isn't either, since he believes that nazi rhetoric doesn't fall under the legal definition of incitement to violence ... because it explicitly does not, based on decades of cases? If you're going to linebyline me, at least bother to read the posts. Your bullet reply is also covered in the post you quote-if other student orgs (including athletic programs) aren't required to foot the bill for their security ("category"), courts are likely to see that demand as an attempt to deny a protected right. Mechanically, I still think that abortion&admitting privileges is the best analog. stone cold posted:it's not even a right here lol stone cold posted:also incitement to imminent lawless action as has been mentioned before is not protected speech This is true, and is also shockingly narrow. Tragicomically, it's why Trump is in more jeopardy for the reaction to protesters in his rallies than Spencer is for anything the sniveling coward has said in his life. Bradenburg and how it has been interpreted since is pretty clear. It requires the speaker to intentionally, immediately, and effectively provoke a crowd to carry out a violent action. Fighting words (Chaplinsky) require speech to be at a specific individual, face to face, and likely to lead a provoke a reasonable, rational person to violence. In the last half century, SCOTUS hasn't found a single application for it. These are the strict limitations of that unprotected speech-and they all apply retroactively. Engaging in the prior restraint of speech/assembly requires a much higher bar than even that... in most cases, this is what we're discussing. Based on prior examples (including Bradenburg itself), Spencer's speech would be protected with any of the following statements:
stone cold posted:get this, society and institutions are stacked to go easy on white supremacists EbonyRubberWolf posted:You know how you stop the government from going after vulnerable groups while making sure to suppress utter shitheads that deal in blood and death like this? Don't elect shitheads that resonate with the prior-mentioned shitheads, and if your shithead-alarm starts going off when near an elected official, work to remove them from power. e: JawKnee posted:there is no chance I'm reading that huge screed at 1am muon posted:I will leave that to Paracaidas as he is a much better communicator than I am.  Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 09:53
|
|