Racial Tension in the U.S.

[David.]

Basically the same opinion I have, though I think Nazis deserve far worse than just losing their jobs.

The only counterpoint I'd bring up about the slippery slope: Germany banned Nazi symbolism, and they haven't descended into some black hole of free speech.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-02/germany-passes-orwellian-anti-free-speech-facebook-law

http://m.dw.com/en/hundreds-of-neo-nazis-in-germany-have-gone-underground/a-37069720

 

[Tornicade]

Basically the same opinion I have, though I think Nazis deserve far worse than just losing their jobs.

The only counterpoint I'd bring up about the slippery slope: Germany banned Nazi symbolism, and they haven't descended into some black hole of free speech.

That's because...they don't have free speech

 

[Cavatt]

All good guys except the Nazis at this were not nonviolent. They were violent, and a person died who was not a Nazi, she was a peaceful protestor. They brought weapons and we're surrounded by militia members whose guns were more powerful than the police. This wasn't just hateful words, it was put in to action.

They negated their speech with their actions and forfeited any civilized treatment.

 

[TyGuy]

It seems to me that that is not true. I see plenty of people defending them by constantly comparing them to non-Nazis. "Oh, the Nazis were bad, but the non-Nazis were just as bad." Hell, we've seen Trump echo that same statement.

That, to me, is fucking ridiculous.

And I agree that them being Nazis doesn't strip their rights, but seeing people bend over backwards to defend fucking Nazis, which is what is happening in this very thread, is disgusting an un-American.

Nobody has bent over backwards to defend Nazis. Free speech has been defended and violence has been condemned. Them being Nazis or white nationalists doesn't change anything. It's appealing to emotion. Well they're Nazis so fuck the law!!!!

 

[Jack Brickman]

Nobody has bent over backwards to defend Nazis. Free speech has been defended and violence has been condemned. Them being Nazis or white nationalists doesn't change anything. It's appealing to emotion. Well they're Nazis so fuck the law!!!!

Seems to me a lot of people here are excusing the behavior of Nazis because the other side "was just as bad." Which is bullshit. There should be no sides here. One side is Nazis. The fact that people here are defending them at all is disgusting.

 

[David.]

The press is regulated by the law of Germany as well as all 16 States of Germany.[105] The most important and sometimes controversial regulations limiting speech and the press can be found in the Criminal code:

• Insult is punishable under Section 185. Satire and similar forms of art enjoy more freedom but have to respect human dignity (Article 1 of the Basic law).
• Malicious Gossip and Defamation (Section 186 and 187). Utterances about facts (opposed to personal judgement) are allowed if they are true and can be proven. Yet journalists are free to investigate without evidence because they are justified by Safeguarding Legitimate Interests (Section 193).
• Hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace (Section 130 [Agitation of the People]), including racist agitation and antisemitism.
• Holocaust denial is punishable according to Section 130 subsection 3.
• Membership in or support of banned political parties (Section 86). Currently banned parties include the SRP and the KPD, but historically all non-Nazi parties have been banned (1933–1945).
• Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86).
• Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (Section 86a). Items such as the Swastika or clothing of the FDJ is banned.
• Disparagement of
  • the Federal President (Section 90).
  • the State and its Symbols (Section 90a).
• Insult to Organs and Representatives of Foreign States (Section 103).
• Rewarding and Approving Crimes (Section 140).
• Casting False Suspicion (Section 164).
• Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a Philosophy of Life if they could disturb public peace (Section 166).
• Dissemination of Pornographic Writings (Section 184).

Outdoor assemblies must be registered beforehand.[106] Assemblies at memorial sites are banned.[107] Individuals and groups may be banned from assembling, especially those whose fundamental rights have been revoked and banned political parties.[107] The Love Parade decision (1 BvQ 28/01 and 1 BvQ 30/01 of 12 July 2001) determined that for an assembly to be protected it must comply with the concept of a constituent assembly, or the so-called narrow concept of assembly whereby the participants in the assembly must pursue a common purpose that is in the common interest.[108]

 

[Jordan]

Basically the same opinion I have, though I think Nazis deserve far worse than just losing their jobs.

Indeed, as do I.

The only counterpoint I'd bring up about the slippery slope: Germany banned Nazi symbolism, and they haven't descended into some black hole of free speech.

Right, and by no mean am I guaranteeing the slippery slope will occur. My impact calculus is that, the consequences if a President does take criminal advantage of the precedent, the US could be significantly worse off.

So, as a comparison, Turkey's President has, for the past fifty years, had the power to ease the rules determining what candidates could run in an election. This was initially a well-meaning rule that would make it easier for certain groups to run for office. Now, however, Erdogan has used this rule to expand Turkey's political participation in election candidacy to cement his dictatorship by effectively taking a focused opposition, allowing more parties to run as part of the opposition, and thus a lack of focus emerges.

Similarly, during the 2006 Palestinian elections, the US and Israel banned tons of political groups from running. They wanted a contest between the PLO and Hamas. The logic was that nobody would vote for Hamas, a group wanting more war. Well, Hamas provides welfare to those in Gaza, and the PLO wanted a dictatorship. Consequently, Hamas won.

Tl;dr; even the most well-meaning political decisions can have grave consequences. That's how I view suspension of free speech, even for a group as despicable as the neo-Nazis. I just see serious ways where a country who elected Trump could fuck itself by giving the President power to determine who does/not have access to free speech.

 

[Tornicade]

All good guys except the Nazis at this were not nonviolent. They were violent, and a person died who was not a Nazi, she was a peaceful protestor. They brought weapons and we're surrounded by militia members whose guns were more powerful than the police. This wasn't just hateful words, it was put in to action.

They negated their speech with their actions and forfeited any civilized treatment.

so your saying the Antifa attacked a group of Armed Nazis with bats and spray cans?
There were a multitude of groups in 30 thousand people in Charlottesville protesting the removal of a statue.

The police failed to maintain a gap between the assembly that had a permit to be there and the group that didn't have a permit to be there.

BTW how many people were shot by those Armed Nazi's?

and there was a lot of statue removal protesters who were disgusted at the Nazi representation in their ranks.

 

[czvo]

Indeed, as do I.


Right, and by no mean am I guaranteeing the slippery slope will occur. My impact calculus is that, the consequences if a President does take criminal advantage of the precedent, the US could be significantly worse off.

So, as a comparison, Turkey's President has, for the past fifty years, had the power to ease the rules determining what candidates could run in an election. This was initially a well-meaning rule that would make it easier for certain groups to run for office. Now, however, Erdogan has used this rule to expand Turkey's political participation in election candidacy to cement his dictatorship by effectively taking a focused opposition, allowing more parties to run as part of the opposition, and thus a lack of focus emerges.

Similarly, during the 2006 Palestinian elections, the US and Israel banned tons of political groups from running. They wanted a contest between the PLO and Hamas. The logic was that nobody would vote for Hamas, a group wanting more war. Well, Hamas provides welfare to those in Gaza, and the PLO wanted a dictatorship. Consequently, Hamas won.

Tl;dr; even the most well-meaning political decisions can have grave consequences. That's how I view suspension of free speech, even for a group as despicable as the neo-Nazis. I just see serious ways where a country who elected Trump could fuck itself by giving the President power to determine who does/not have access to free speech.

That's fair, and you'll have to forgive any ignorance in what I'm about to post. The President doesn't have that ability now, right? And if he were to hand down some executive order, wouldn't it be stopped relatively quickly by the courts (a la the travel ban)?

 

[Jordan]

That's fair, and you'll have to forgive any ignorance in what I'm about to post. The President doesn't have that ability now, right? And if he were to hand down some executive order, wouldn't it be stopped relatively quickly by the courts (a la the travel ban)?

Correct, but my argument is from a matter of policy. Who is determining what groups do and don't have access to free speech? The President? You see my problem. The Supreme Court? That's the same group that vote on major cases along partisan lines, hence you are directed to the aforementioned President problem. The Legislature? That's the worst of both worlds.

I just don't see any pragmatic way a policy can be created that would correctly determine who does/not have access to free speech. And each one has consequences that, in my opinion, are very, very grave.

 

[-Akronite-]

Just caught up. Glad SpanishCavsFan could bring us a little closer.

Look, I'm well aware that I am very liberal. Gouri is well aware that he's hard left as well. AZ is too and it's no secret.

But it's kinda funny having these "extremist"* fingers getting pointed by people I've never seen out of lock-step with Trump. So many complaints about being painted with a broad brush and being told what you think while SIMULTANEOUSLY saying all the liberals in the thread don't care who dies so long as their views are forwarded...



*BTW extremist is now defined as someone who recognizes the existence of white privilege.

 

[-Akronite-]

Correct, but my argument is from a matter of policy. Who is determining what groups do and don't have access to free speech? The President? You see my problem. The Supreme Court? That's the same group that vote on major cases along partisan lines, hence you are directed to the aforementioned President problem. The Legislature? That's the worst of both worlds.

I just don't see any pragmatic way a policy can be created that would correctly determine who does/not have access to free speech. And each one has consequences that, in my opinion, are very, very grave.

The default is free speech. If you feel that's being infringed upon somehow, you take it to court.

The ACLU helped the white nationalist rally get its permit back. The system worked. So what is the issue you're currently raising because I'm confused as the moment.

EDIT: Our system is flawed because it's human. The Supreme Court has a history of major decisions that are fucking awful, but we're never gonna have a perfect government/system/society. This is about as good as humanity can do.

 

[Jordan]

The default is free speech. If you feel that's being infringed upon somehow, you take it to court.

The ACLU helped the white nationalist rally get its permit back. The system worked. So what is the issue you're currently raising because I'm confused as the moment.

EDIT: Our system is flawed because it's human. The Supreme Court has a history of major decisions that are fucking awful, but we're never gonna have a perfect government/system/society. This is about as good as humanity can do.

None, I think the status quo/default is about as good as we're going to get. Even if it sucks. I just see no feasible way that banning the free speech of certain groups - no matter how despicable they are - necessarily ends well.

 

[MediumBaller]

All good guys except the Nazis at this were not nonviolent. They were violent, and a person died who was not a Nazi, she was a peaceful protestor. They brought weapons and we're surrounded by militia members whose guns were more powerful than the police. This wasn't just hateful words, it was put in to action.

They negated their speech with their actions and forfeited any civilized treatment.

If the protestors had these massive machine guns and no one got shot I'd say that shows they have pretty good restraint...

 

[-Akronite-]

The ACLU has stated they will no longer defend groups that protest with firearms.

Ethically to me it's the right choice (big surprise given that I think we should do away with the 2nd Amendment or severely limit its reach).

Legally/constitutionally it seems a little inconsistent though. We have 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. As long as no one is using the firearms in the protest, is there a legal/constitutional distinction to be made here for the ACLU? I agree with the decision from a moral standpoint but I'm not sure I'm totally on board with the decision if they are to continue being an organization that defends everyone's rights.