|
Lightning Knight posted:The inherent problem with this is that fascists do not care about any of this and will do away with it once in power and consequently must be opposed as much as possible. This is a textbook paradox of tolerance problem. I’m not saying to tolerate them. Punch them, beat the poo poo out of them in the streets, make them have to fear for their lives if they want to promote their inherent evil outside their own homes. And when they do things in their home deplatform them, ban them from being able to so much as post an “ironic” heil Hitler on YouTube and laugh as they cry “mah Freeze Peach!” But if they fall into the legal system they have to be treated equally under the law. And then lock them away.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
i think being a free speech absolutist (as i was years back) only works by ignoring the inequality in our society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Picking a philosophy off a shelf and approaching it this way seems like an absolutely bizarre way to approach life it's the kinda thing you do when you've spent your life sheltered by wealth and academic lifestyles where you'll never actually deal with the real world fallout of 'actually 'murder the jews' is fine to put on a billboard next to a synagogue'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I didn’t say they shouldn’t be allowed, I said that lawyers who take them up on it are collaborators. You did say that he should only be allowed a legal court appointed attorney and nothing more. That is not equal treatment. I am all for gently caress off nazis and all that poo poo but they have the same rights as any other person. Just like rapists and pedophiles. My gut wants them strung up in the streets and stoned to death but they have rights like everyone else and the minute you start arguing they don’t is just as dangerous as fascism itself. Now if you are arguing the lawyer who took the case is a piece of poo poo then I agree with you but taking away a persons rights no matter how horrible they are is not right. jase1 fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Because fascism is inherently dangerous and should be disrupted and undermined at every available opportunity. I don't disagree that fascism is inherently dangerous, but how does that work in real life? If you commit a "fascist" crime you don't get legal representation? What if you genuinely didn't do it? What if someone IS a fascist but their crime was unrelated, like they just robbed a 7-11 or something? How do you legally define fascism in the law? People call vegans fascists. People call the MeToo movement fascists. If we allow the court system to declare that fascists don't get legal representation how long until everything is declared "fascist"? Would it take the end of the day or the end of the week?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I’m not saying to tolerate them. Punch them, beat the poo poo out of them in the streets, make them have to fear for their lives if they want to promote their inherent evil outside their own homes. And when they do things in their home deplatform them, ban them from being able to so much as post an “ironic” heil Hitler on YouTube and laugh as they cry “mah Freeze Peach!” But if they fall into the legal system they have to be treated equally under the law. And then lock them away. And I’m not arguing that the system treat them differently in terms of the rules. Punching Nazis is civil disobedience - you still get in trouble for it if the cops catch you. I’m arguing that lawyers should respond to open fascists by refusing to defend/collaborate with them except the bare minimum to meet the requirements of the law. No lawyer should accept a request to defend Nazis, let them have their court assigned lawyer and that court assigned lawyer should not be going out of their way to be helpful to Nazis. This is all a matter of what lawyers should do, not how the law should be written.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
When we say, 'Does this reprehensible human not deserve the same rights as any citizen?' that's a different frame. Popehat is not merely executing his legal duty as a lawyer; he's getting paid. I actually have faith in our public defenders to do their job but claiming all people have a right to for-profit lawyers is kind of missing the point. It is not a morally good position to defend monsters for cash. The system requires a devil's advocate and I think it actually is admirable that people have to defend monsters - when they are assigned to do it by a court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:I really don't get why pundits obsessively compare previous president's behavior with Trump's. Except cats can learn to use the toilet so this is giving Trump too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:it's the kinda thing you do when you've spent your life sheltered by wealth and academic lifestyles where you'll never actually deal with the real world fallout of 'actually 'murder the jews' is fine to put on a billboard next to a synagogue'. I think you just need an emotional attachment to a principle, because then any criticism of it becomes an attack on you or the idea that you hold dear. “We can’t let the government regulate speech, or else we’ll become nazi Germany! We have to risk some Jews getting murdered, because the cost of stopping it is doing what nazis did!”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The inherent problem with this is that fascists do not care about any of this and will do away with it once in power and consequently must be opposed as much as possible. This is a textbook paradox of tolerance problem. That is the problem, but you have to realize by doing away with it preemptively you're doing half the work for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I don't disagree that fascism is inherently dangerous, but how does that work in real life? If you commit a "fascist" crime you don't get legal representation? What if you genuinely didn't do it? What if someone IS a fascist but their crime was unrelated, like they just robbed a 7-11 or something? How do you legally define fascism in the law? People call vegans fascists. People call the MeToo movement fascists. If we allow the court system to declare that fascists don't get legal representation how long until everything is declared "fascist"? Would it take the end of the day or the end of the week? This dude gets it. There have been innumerable variations on short changing the rights of people by saying that group X doesn't deserve competent legal representation. Sacco and Vanzetti for anarchists, Gitmo for terrorists etc etc etc. We also live on the same internet as DSauza if you need an example of a poo poo heel who loves to misclassify and misconstrue for personal gain. Edit: i dont think overburdened public defenders are competent legal representation. osker fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Dec 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:When we say, 'Does this reprehensible human not deserve the same rights as any citizen?' that's a different frame. Popehat is not merely executing his legal duty as a lawyer; he's getting paid. yea it's real gross how this has so quickly shifted from 'this guy found a nazi, gave him a platform, and chose to represent his right to be a nazi and when we said 'gently caress that guy' his dipshit friend got his feelings hurt' to 'ACTUALLY NAZIS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE LAW FIRMS'. Love to discuss current events while furiously chasing goal posts and what's this the goal posts keep moving in the shapes of swastikas????
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
jase1 posted:You did say that he should only be allowed a legal court appointed attorney and nothing more. That is not equal treatment. It’s not a matter of allowed, it’s a matter of lawyers accepting or rejecting. You have the right to A lawyer, not the lawyer of your choice. If they cannot afford or find a lawyer - which they shouldn’t be able to because no lawyer should willingly represent them as a choice - then one will be assigned to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:That is the problem, but you have to realize by doing away with it preemptively you're doing half the work for them. Polite society is already built on lies and inequality. We already live in a society that seems some people to be worth far more than others. Bending over backwards to afford Nazis decorum is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:are you confusing him with Randazza "No free speech for Nazis" is a perfectly reasonable stance, but "limits on free speech are going to apply to Black Activists before it hits a single Nazi" isn't a crazy belief either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Didn't Obama do this too at some point? Not to draw some false equivalency or anything. I remember most here being pretty pissed about that too because the reasoning was so dumb ("gotta tighten our belts"). Yes, it was another example of Obama's strategy for striking deals where he preemptively threw people under the bus in an attempt to appeal to republicans. Here are Federal raises and inflation since 2000: code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
osker posted:This dude gets it. There have been innumerable variations on short changing the rights of people by saying that group X doesn't deserve competent legal representation. Sacco and Vanzetti for anarchists, Gitmo for terrorists etc etc etc. We also live on the same internet as DSauza if you need an example of a poo poo heel who loves to misclassify and misconstrue for personal gain. There is no possible way that decreeing that certain types of people don't have rights could ever backfire. Rite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i think being a free speech absolutist (as i was years back) only works by ignoring the inequality in our society. I've come around more and more on the idea that you can't have a free and tolerant society, and allow a group to openly advocate for the destruction of the other at the same time. I used to be a major total free speech advocate from growing up in a pretty affluent suburb, but the last 5-6 years have taught me that the idea in of itself is a paradox, and letting them hide under the guise of free speech allows them to infiltrate major levels of government. A lot of free speech purists seem to believe both these things are possible, and a lot of it comes down to the demographics many of these people fall into are not on the immediate chopping block. It is a lot easier to tolerate hate speech when you have some immunity to it, and aren't the person being targeted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It’s not a matter of allowed, it’s a matter of lawyers accepting or rejecting. You have the right to A lawyer, not the lawyer of your choice. If they cannot afford or find a lawyer - which they shouldn’t be able to because no lawyer should willingly represent them as a choice - then one will be assigned to them. Yeah exactly. All Americans have a right to free speech; they don't all have a right to have their book published by Harper Collins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Nazis can become lawyers too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Worth noting that legal representation for shitheads is baked into our country's founding, with John Adams' defense of the British soldiers from the Boston Massacre. Reason being is the question of who is the shithead depends very much on the powers that be, and that defending shitheads and forcing the government to prove their case is invaluable to ensuring that laws are properly followed and the levers of power aren't abused, especially when people try and use those same levers to prosecute non-shitheads. "But Ace, you loving idiot!", you might say, "The government already prosecutes non-shitheads all the time!" And you'd be correct! The solution, though, isn't to make it easier to prosecute shitheads (Keeping in mind that any such legislation unless written in an utterly airtight fashion could then be swung around and used against marginalized groups—see how some of the early anti-trust acts were used against Unions in the 1880s-90s), but instead greatly improving the system for defendants overall so that being forced to rely on a public defender isn't giving yourself over to the mercy of the cops and the courts (Which is something Ken White has advocated for).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The entire thread is, along with half of Twitter. lol 'are going to', I love when people defend nazi rights by acting like things are currently equal and saying 'gently caress nazis though' is gonna be the thing that STARTS to gently caress things up
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Yeah exactly. This is the exact same justification used during the Red Scares. Don't kid yourselves. If there is a crackdown on extremist speech it will end up being directed at leftists as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
jase1 posted:Nazis can become lawyers too. And then they would be a terrible person? I don’t see how this is relevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Xae posted:This is the exact same justification used during the Red Scares. Would you care to be more specific?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i think being a free speech absolutist (as i was years back) only works by ignoring the inequality in our society. As free speech is taken away in this country who do you think feels it? It's not the loving nazis. I'm completely for free speech. The nazis don't want free speech and now if the anti-nazis are coming around to the idea free speech isn't a good idea well guess what, the nazis win. Things are lovely and unfair enough in our society without just giving up the concept of free speech because some racist assholes said racist rear end in a top hat things because the end result ain't going to be that the racist nazi fascist assholes don't get a voice, the end result is we don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Would you care to be more specific? Everyone has a right to act, just not in Hollywood Movies if you're a communist or someone claims you are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:I've come around more and more on the idea that you can't have a free and tolerant society, and allow a group to openly advocate for the destruction of the other at the same time. I used to be a major total free speech advocate from growing up in a pretty affluent suburb, but the last 5-6 years have taught me that the idea in of itself is a paradox, and letting them hide under the guise of free speech allows them to infiltrate major levels of government. right and it's also that the rich get more speech than the rest of us. even before citizens united that was the case. 1glitch0 posted:As free speech is taken away in this country who do you think feels it? It's not the loving nazis. I'm completely for free speech. The nazis don't want free speech and now if the anti-nazis are coming around to the idea free speech isn't a good idea well guess what, the nazis win. Things are lovely and unfair enough in our society without just giving up the concept of free speech because some racist assholes said racist rear end in a top hat things because the end result ain't going to be that the racist nazi fascist assholes don't get a voice, the end result is we don't. germany's in better shape than we are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
People shouldn't be allowed to engage in hate speech. But the government shouldn't be allowed to prosecute you for hate speech without going through the necessary steps to prove that you did it. I feel like I should not have to explain why the government, the Justice Department of which is currently under the control of Donald Trump, should not be able to convict somebody if they can't prove a case against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:As free speech is taken away in this country who do you think feels it? It's not the loving nazis. I'm completely for free speech. The nazis don't want free speech and now if the anti-nazis are coming around to the idea free speech isn't a good idea well guess what, the nazis win. Things are lovely and unfair enough in our society without just giving up the concept of free speech because some racist assholes said racist rear end in a top hat things because the end result ain't going to be that the racist nazi fascist assholes don't get a voice, the end result is we don't. The last time Nazis were prominent we didn’t stop them with free speech, we stopped them with bullets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:lol 'are going to', I love when people defend nazi rights by acting like things are currently equal and saying 'gently caress nazis though' is gonna be the thing that STARTS to gently caress things up In the context of lawyers means we're in the context of court cases means we're in the context of defining free speech limitations means you're just being a weird obtuse dick. (I'm not a free speech absolutist lol come on man)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The entire thread is, along with half of Twitter. No. It's pretty clear that popehat voluntarily choose to defend his nazi pal who he had previously provided a platform for, that makes him a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Just when you thought there were no more crimes "Mueller’s office, which is separately investigating Trump’s campaign for possible collusion with Russians during the 2016 election, made contact and informed Romero the matter was not within their jurisdiction." Dworkin continuing to be a completely disingenuous #resistance grifter as usual I see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
If the argument is "a court appointed attorney is tantamount to not getting representation" what the hell does that say about the large amount of people that have to get that purely because they can't afford a lawyer? Isn't the apparent fact that people aren't able to get adequate legal representation based on their economic status a much bigger deal that once again defending the navel gazing idea that we have to defend nazis lest we become them? I'm saying that based on the previous notion since the idea that court appointed lawyers are inherently inferior to be pretty lovely and insulting, especially since that sort of work is incredibly important and honorable, much more than Alan Dershowitz making huge sums defending rich murderers and pedophiles. sexpig by night posted:lol 'are going to', I love when people defend nazi rights by acting like things are currently equal and saying 'gently caress nazis though' is gonna be the thing that STARTS to gently caress things up Yeah this is like the people wringing their hands that boycotting Tucker Carlson is going to result in advertisers having power over public discourse. We have already crossed these Rubicons when BLM advocates are held by the FBI for three months without being charged because of Facebook posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Xae posted:Everyone has a right to act, just not in Hollywood Movies if you're a communist or someone claims you are. The difference is that communist boogiemen are not currently out to curtail the rights of others. People are allowed to decline to help or serve Nazis in a private capacity. This is the difficulty with Nazism in a liberal society in general; unlike other groups, to do otherwise is to embolden them. Also for what it's worth, our society already does refuse to employ openly Nazi assholes. We've seen a number of companies fire their employees over racist Facebook memes (though probably not nearly enough). Also also, 'this is just like the Red Scare, and everybody agrees the Red Scare was bad!' is bad appeal. Address the issue as it appears today, or not at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:We have already crossed these Rubicons when BLM advocates are held by the FBI for three months without being charged because of Facebook posts. *and possibly also assassinated by the FBI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:In the context of lawyers means we're in the context of court cases means we're in the context of defining free speech limitations means you're just being a weird obtuse dick. we have literal states where you have to sign an oath that you won't ever support BDS to get state jobs and those have been legally defended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:The entire thread is, along with half of Twitter. Black speech is already limited by virtue of our society. There's a reason code switching exists. BLM activists are already labeled Black Identity Extremists for saying that racism is real and bad. Hate speech laws are not gonna make a dent in our day to day lives or activism with the exception that we will be allowed to report our harassers to the authorities. Now whether the authorities will enforce hatespeech laws is another matter all together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The last time Nazis were prominent we didn’t stop them with free speech, we stopped them with bullets. I also don't think it's radical to say, 'we're trying to stop hate speech, not free speech.' Free speech has never been 'free' in the sense that rear end in a top hat redditors like to claim, there have always been some limits on what can be said and against whom. It's just that coincidentally whenever somebody wants to curtail all of the racist crap that people come out of the woodwork to protest on behalf of the poor Nazis. Nobody apparently gives a poo poo about libel or slander laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
1glitch0 posted:As free speech is taken away in this country who do you think feels it? It's not the loving nazis. I'm completely for free speech. The nazis don't want free speech and now if the anti-nazis are coming around to the idea free speech isn't a good idea well guess what, the nazis win. Things are lovely and unfair enough in our society without just giving up the concept of free speech because some racist assholes said racist rear end in a top hat things because the end result ain't going to be that the racist nazi fascist assholes don't get a voice, the end result is we don't. It’s good to find a rhetorical bludgeon to silence liberal decorum fuckers who trot out “let the nazi have equal time on Good Morning America or else we’re betraying the constitution!” like they’re loving John Mill. It doesn’t have to mean the law is doing anything. Denying nazis a platform doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be something the cops do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2018 19:24
|
|