U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[butterbumps!]

what's the correct escalation of violence for hate speech?   what's the line of acceptability?

to be sure, I was secretly pleased the asshole got punched, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with advocating violence as a political tool, at least so casually like this.

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The right to free speech was never meant to make you immune to the consequences of your speech.

Yes, but the consequences must be within the law and if they are not, then the state must investigate and prosecute the people who inflict them. If the state selectively refuses to go after people who perpetrate violence on a specific group of people because of the beliefs and speech of the latter, then the right to free speech is a sham -- the supposed monopoly on violence may not go after a speaker directly, but it effectively outsources the violence to the speaker's political opponents.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes, but the consequences must be within the law and if they are not, then the state must investigate and prosecute the people who inflict them.

And no one has claimed otherwise.

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If the state selectively refuses to go after people who perpetrate violence on a specific group of people because of the beliefs and speech of the latter, then the right to free speech is a sham -- the supposed monopoly on violence may not go after a speaker directly, but it effectively outsources the violence to the speaker's political opponents.

And the state has not selectively refused to go after people who perpetrate violence on a specific group of people. Though 'specific group' here is also disingenuous - it is a specific person. 

But it doesn't matter, because the state is actually going after the guy. 

So...what, precisely, is the problem?

[LongRider]

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/26/trump-bashed-the-unemployment-rate-what-happens-now-that-hes-in-charge-of-it/

Data denial. It's very Republican. Trump is just doing what he learned from the Republican Party.

 

You know, if I recall correctly Jack Welch accused the Obama administration of cooking the books back in 2012. There were plenty of reasonable arguments to make against taking the U3 numbers at complete face value, like looking at the U6 numbers and so forth.

But, nope, Welch went straight for the conspiracy theory.

Trump is an idiot. But, it seems he's just parroting nonsense he learned from other Republicans.

IIRC, GWB was also accused of cooking the books on unemployment numbers.  Not to the degree Prez Monster Thing does tho.

[Kalbear]

And to be clear: if your position is that it is never the case that violence is acceptable against anyone you oppose because it is immoral to you, cool beans. I don't agree, but sure.

If your position is that you should never strike first and only should use violence in self-defense, okay. Again, I don't agree, but sure, I got ya.

If your position is that you should never use violence against someone for simply saying something, I say: fuck that noise. 

[Chaircat Meow]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And it still applies, just as much. 

Freedom of speech is not about allowing random people to not react to your speech. It is ensuring that the government does not curtail your speech. That's all. I will absolutely defend that right. The government does not have the right to suspend your speech. 

But that doesn't mean your speech is going to be fully protected without consequence of other action. 

We have entirely additional laws about violence, the specific use of it and when it is acceptable and when it is not. Again, it is considered to be 'aggravated' when violence is provoked by things...like speech. But the two are different things. There is no law saying that 'if you're in the middle of saying something, getting punched is extra bad'.

Assault and battery are crimes. So is inciting violence and riot. One can simultaneously accept that Spencer et al have a right to not be censored by the government AND ALSO applaud people who want to - and do - risk imprisonment to punch his ass. 

Not around here. Maybe where you're from? I'm not familiar with Australian rules on free speech. 

I disagree. Private violence can also threaten free speech. Secularists in places like Bangladesh are frequently attacked and sometimes killed by Islamic fundamentalists for saying what they think. Regardless of what the state there does wrt religious expression those people still have their freedom of speech curtailed because of the violence of other private citizens. It isn't something only additional to free speech that the state punishes private citizens who respond violently to your speech.

[Rippounet]

18 minutes ago, Einheri said:

I agree with Manhole. Defending free speech =/= defending Nazis.  As a matter of fact, free speech is also the solution to combating them as even though it allow the Nazis to display their despicable views, it also allows us to confront them and their views with our superior arguments, and maybe we’ll even manage to turn some of them over to the light side, like this Black man who managed to convince 200 KKK members to leave the organization. Violence won’t accomplish that; it’ll only make the situation worse, and well meaning people will be sent to jail for it (and possibly have their life ruined as a consequence).

 

I was just about to google search that very article.

Some forms of hate speech are constitutionally protected in the US (see Snyder v. Phelps or Brandenburg v. Ohio). This is a good thing.
The law also punishes anyone for physically assaulting someone else. This, needless to say, is also a good thing.
This doesn't mean one can be publicly insulting or demeaning to others without expecting a strong reaction. It's always best to exercise your rights in a responsible and thoughtful manner. The law tends to protect best those who protect themselves (including in court).

All this isn't true for objectively despicable views only. For better or for worse we all have to be careful about what we say in public, regardless of what the law says. Sometimes, public attitude is for the best. Sometimes... Not so much.

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Yes, but the consequences must be within the law and if they are not, then the state must investigate and prosecute the people who inflict them. If the state selectively refuses to go after people who perpetrate violence on a specific group of people because of the beliefs and speech of the latter, then the right to free speech is a sham -- the supposed monopoly on violence may not go after a speaker directly, but it effectively outsources the violence to the speaker's political opponents.

Absolutely. Which is why if I were to punch someone in the face for his views I would be certain to be in a position where I can take responsibility for it. By that I mean handing myself to the police. I think some views deserve a good punch in the face. But I wouldn't want to live in a country where such acts of violence go unpunished either. Responsibility cuts both ways.

Now, I also bear in mind that it's not always easy to be in a position where you can take responsibility for your actions. But that's yet another can of worms.

[Squab]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not familiar with Australian rules on free speech.

its unlawful to offend someone based on their race or ethnicity. Basically a law protecting kiwis and seppos from jokes, and rightly so.  Although there is a push now to include religion so no jokes about Christians or any other religion... Some have likened this to a blasphemy law but I see no reason why we should be allowed to make fun of people with imaginary friends.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

So...what, precisely, is the problem?

advocating violence

[butterbumps!]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If your position is that you should never use violence against someone for simply saying something, I say: fuck that noise. 

What about a wingnut who punches out some planned parenthood volunteer for spreading the gospel of birth control and abortions that they find immoral?

Doesn't this open the door for them to use violence against us for our speech that they don't like?

[sifth]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

What about a wingnut who punches out some planned parenthood volunteer for spreading the gospel of birth control and abortions that they find immoral?

Doesn't this open the door for them to use violence against us for our speech that they don't like?

I don't like people like that, but he's not preaching the genocide of a group of people. So I see no issue with that.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

I disagree. Private violence can also threaten free speech. Secularists in places like Bangladesh are frequently attacked and sometimes killed by Islamic fundamentalists for saying what they think. Regardless of what the state there does wrt religious expression those people still have their freedom of speech curtailed because of the violence of other private citizens. It isn't something only additional to free speech that the state punishes private citizens who respond violently to your speech.

I agree that private violence which is not prosecuted can threaten free speech. Bangladesh allows a lot more people to get away with, well, murder, against thoughts they do not like. It isn't just about religious expression; it is about protecting people from violence, period. 

But the state isn't there to simply stop people from hitting anyone, at any time, when they start talking. If you don't want to be hit for saying Nazi rhetoric, chances are good that you're going to have to stop saying it. If you don't stop, you're likely going to get hit. That doesn't mean the hitter is free from prosecution, and point of fact I think it would be a good thing for them to willingly give themselves up. But it does mean that hateful speech that specifically denigrates others and treats them as nonhumans will likely result in confrontation.

And if you believe that hateful speech that denigrates others and treats them like nonhumans should NOT result in confrontation, that is where I disagree. 

1 minute ago, Squab said:

advocating violence

Why is advocating violence while accepting the outcome of the violence a problem, exactly? I mean hell, you're Australian - as far as I understand it you have to kill a couple of venomous creatures just to get out of bed every morning before eating a bowl of vegemite and then going off to beat each other with Fosters cans while playing rugby. Some of that might be inaccurate. 

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

What about a wingnut who punches out some planned parenthood volunteer for spreading the gospel of birth control and abortions that they find immoral?

Doesn't this open the door for them to use violence against us for our speech that they don't like?

How does it open that door? The door is already quite open, open very wide and used all the time. And you know what? It's shockingly effective. Me saying that violence is an understandable reaction to hate speech is not going to make some random person go 'ya know, I was going to be okay but this dude on westeros said it's okay to punch nazis, so now I'm going to punch some old lady handing out condoms'. At least not unless they were going to do that already. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

What about a wingnut who punches out some planned parenthood volunteer for spreading the gospel of birth control and abortions that they find immoral?

Doesn't this open the door for them to use violence against us for our speech that they don't like?

Of course there is going to be some measure of "hypocrisy" here.  I put that in a quote because the idea of comparing nazis with reproductive health is laughable and quite disgusting.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

Doesn't freedom of speech rights only protect you from being victimised by the govt for the things you say?

If you are standing on the street spewing out hateful stuff and some ordinary citizen comes up and punches you in the face, that isn't actually a free speech issue. If it was, then the person who threw the punch might try to argue freedom of speech as well "Your honour, I was just letting my fists do the talking." 

Equally, if you are standing on a street signing a Nickleback song and some ordinary citizen comes up and punches you in the face, that's not a freedom of speech issue; it's a public service, amirite?

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I agree that private violence which is not prosecuted can threaten free speech. Bangladesh allows a lot more people to get away with, well, murder, against thoughts they do not like. It isn't just about religious expression; it is about protecting people from violence, period. 

But the state isn't there to simply stop people from hitting anyone, at any time, when they start talking. If you don't want to be hit for saying Nazi rhetoric, chances are good that you're going to have to stop saying it. If you don't stop, you're likely going to get hit. That doesn't mean the hitter is free from prosecution, and point of fact I think it would be a good thing for them to willingly give themselves up. But it does mean that hateful speech that specifically denigrates others and treats them as nonhumans will likely result in confrontation.

And if you believe that hateful speech that denigrates others and treats them like nonhumans should NOT result in confrontation, that is where I disagree. 

I still disagree. If force was regularly used against people espousing specific ideas, and the perpetrators were prosecuted, but future perpetrators were not thereby deterred and the violence continued, the people with the unpopular idea would have lost their freedom of speech. For example, if in Bangladesh the state did successfully prosecute everyone to kill an atheist blogger but atheist bloggers were still killed frequently the atheist blogging community would still lack freedom of speech.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

I don't like people like that, but he's not preaching the genocide of a group of people. So I see no issue with that.

I don't understand your response.   You have no problem with a wingnut punching out a volunteer who advocates for birth control and abortion because... the wingnut is not preaching genocide?  

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Of course there is going to be some measure of "hypocrisy" here.  I put that in a quote because the idea of comparing nazis with reproductive health is laughable and quite disgusting.

 

eta:  I misread.  nvm.  sorry dr p

[Rippounet]

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you are standing on the street spewing out hateful stuff and some ordinary citizen comes up and punches you in the face, that isn't actually a free speech issue. If it was, then the person who threw the punch might try to argue freedom of speech as well "Your honour, I was just letting my fists do the talking."

That reminds me...
Just ten days ago the French prime minister, who is also running for the presidency, was visiting a small town in Western France. A young man actually slapped him in the face while saying "this is Brittany."
He got a 3-month suspended prison sentence.
I kind of admire the guy.

 

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

I don't understand your response.   You have no problem with a wingnut punching out a volunteer who advocates for birth control and abortion because... the wingnut is not preaching genocide?  

no, this disingenuous attitude is tiresome, and counterproductive.     I'm clearly asking where advocating violence against speech gets us, since these assholes will be free to retaliate violently against our speech.  And on reproductive rights, this is actually an area where they've hit us with violence (bombings, murder) numerous times, so it's not an outrageous issue to bring up.

I said no such thing, I simply said I view genocide as something much more sick and twisted than birth control.

[butterbumps!]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How does it open that door? The door is already quite open, open very wide and used all the time. And you know what? It's shockingly effective. Me saying that violence is an understandable reaction to hate speech is not going to make some random person go 'ya know, I was going to be okay but this dude on westeros said it's okay to punch nazis, so now I'm going to punch some old lady handing out condoms'. At least not unless they were going to do that already. 

My question/ concern is whether advocating violence like this leads to continued escalation and acceptance of more violence.   I'd have thought maintaining a moral highground was worth something.    If it becomes acceptable to punch nazis, where does that lead?    How do they respond, how do we respond, where does it go?

[Chaircat Meow]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Doesn't freedom of speech rights only protect you from being victimised by the govt for the things you say?

If you are standing on the street spewing out hateful stuff and some ordinary citizen comes up and punches you in the face, that isn't actually a free speech issue. If it was, then the person who threw the punch might try to argue freedom of speech as well "Your honour, I was just letting my fists do the talking." 

Equally, if you are standing on a street signing a Nickleback song and some ordinary citizen comes up and punches you in the face, that's not a freedom of speech issue; it's a public service, amirite?

You're going to have to explain which side of the argument you are on here, because I actually can't tell.   

[sifth]

Just now, butterbumps! said:

My question/ concern is whether advocating violence like this leads to continued escalation and acceptance of more violence.   I'd have thought maintaining a moral highground was worth something.    If it becomes acceptable to punch nazis, where does that lead?    How do they respond, how do we respond, where does it go?

So letting people continue to preach hate and death is cool. However we should do nothing about it and just wait for them to attack first?