U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[butterbumps!]

Just now, sifth said:

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

Yes, you do, I do, probably everyone here does, because of course.   But a bunch of wingnuts on the right don't see it that way.   And have used considerable violence against reproductive rights workers.  They see it as righteous the way we see punching nazis is.    

[Squab]

 

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why is advocating violence while accepting the outcome of the violence a problem, exactly? I mean hell, you're Australian

 Advocating violence maybe even murder or manslaughter is fine as long as you accept the consequences?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Chaircat Meow said:

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.

And that's why we have things like hate crime laws in the US - to fight specifically for minority rights and to deter these even further so that the rights of others are not disproportionately impacted.

In that case, the state often puts on very punitive rules against those people and/or puts in more laws, or they start protecting those people actively knowing they are more likely to be under threat.

But in that case, the problem is still not 'free speech', nor is the problem about the government's rule - it is about the culture of the community, and that can't be fixed by government intervention regardless. 

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

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.

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm not advocating against speech. I'm advocating violence against a specific ideology practiced by a specific person (and not people in general either), which has shown to be incredibly dangerous to liberal democracies, has shown to encourage others to inflict violence on others and has shown to be otherwise valueless. 

Those assholes are not 'free to retaliate'. And if that is the problem, then the problem does not exist with the laws of speech - it exists with the laws that are allowing said assholes to be free to retaliate. 

The reproductive rights assholes that bomb and kill are doing so without any threat of violence to them whatsoever. Why would you think that this will now change if someone punches a nazi? Do you think they are now going to be more emboldened? I doubt it. They certainly weren't when, say, the LA riots hit. 

2 minutes ago, 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?

It might lead to continued escalation, but my gut feeling is that said escalation has already occurred. As to the moral high ground, I don't think it matters in the least. Being morally acceptable when you are politely asking people not to please be talking about being enslaved and murdered really doesn't work. Where that point is can be argued, but I think we can agree that it exists at some level, and we're haggling over the price.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, 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?

I may be wrong here. But, I believe there is a case out of the 1940s, where the Supreme Court actually ruled that the government actually has a duty to protect you from violence when speaking.

I believe that particular case involved Jehovah's witnesses.

I despise Nazi's and their fellow travelers with a passion. But, I basically consider myself to be ACLU liberal Democrat. So, my instinct is usually to be very protective of free speech, particular, since there was a time in this country, when anti-free speech laws were used to go after lefties.

If you are going to say, that one groups political views doesn't merit free speech protection, then I think you need to be very specific about those cases and circumstances in which it doesn't apply. Because, the rule you lay down, will have to apply to everyone. Think very carefully about what the rule is. Maybe, advocating genocide of a people is such an exception.

Also, with regard, to physical violence, I do think there probably is a point where the listener probably can't be expected to hear certain forms of speech. I'm basically thinking of the fighting words exception here. But, the exception, I think needs to be very narrowly specified.

[LongRider]

Compromise does not work with our political opponents. When will we learn?

Chelsea E Manning

In Chelsea Manning’s first column since her commutation, she writes that Barack Obama’s legacy is a warning against not being bold enough.

 

Quote

Now, after eight years of attempted compromise and relentless disrespect in return, we are moving into darker times. Healthcare will change for the worse, especially for those of us in need. Criminalization will expand, with bigger prisons filled with penalized bodies – poor, black, brown, queer and trans people. People will probably be targeted because of their religion. Queer and trans people expect to have their rights infringed upon.

The one simple lesson to draw from President Obama’s legacy: do not start off with a compromise. They won’t meet you in the middle. Instead, what we need is an unapologetic progressive leader.

We need someone who is unafraid to be criticized, since you will inevitably be criticized. We need someone willing to face all of the vitriol, hatred and dogged determination of those opposed to us. Our opponents will not support us nor will they stop thwarting the march toward a just system that gives people a fighting chance to live. Our lives are at risk – especially for immigrants, Muslim people and black people.

Read the whole thing, she's right, progressives need to be bold and not back down.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Squab said:

 Advocating violence maybe even murder or manslaughter is fine as long as you accept the consequences?

I really have zero idea about what you're talking about here or what your point is, but that website does look snazzy. Here', here's another website about where one punch can kill. 

Quote

If you are going to say, that one groups political views doesn't merit free speech protection, then I think you need to be very specific about those cases and circumstances in which it doesn't apply. Because, the rule you lay down, will have to apply to everyone. Think very carefully about what the rule is. Maybe, advocating genocide of a people is such an exception.

And as no one has advocated that one group's views don't merit free speech protection, you're cool, right?

[Dr. Pepper]

11 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.

"Disingenuous"?  I'm certainly not being that.  I acknowledged my own hypocrisy in this situation, and also pointed out that I find nothing comparable between a nazi and a healthcare worker.  That's exactly why I'm pretty ok with someone punching a nazi but against someone murdering a healthcare provider or bombing a clinic.  

I've become quite the pacifist over the years.  However, I draw the line at nazis.  There's is an incredibly dangerous ideology that is harmful to everyone.  It should be fought against.  If the resistance to this starts with a couple people punching Richard Spencer, I'm ok with that.  Doubly ok if it means that people stop using coded language and call a nazi a nazi instead of something sanitized like "alt-right".

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Squab said:

Advocating violence maybe even murder or manslaughter is fine as long as you accept the consequences?

If it's not deemed a "true" threat (as in, there is good reason to believe you might actually do it), it is constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment. So technically, saying "nazis should be punched in the face" is totally legal, just as nazis have the right to say stuff like "the jews ought to be exterminated."

[Chaircat Meow]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And that's why we have things like hate crime laws in the US - to fight specifically for minority rights and to deter these even further so that the rights of others are not disproportionately impacted.

In that case, the state often puts on very punitive rules against those people and/or puts in more laws, or they start protecting those people actively knowing they are more likely to be under threat.

But in that case, the problem is still not 'free speech', nor is the problem about the government's rule - it is about the culture of the community, and that can't be fixed by government intervention regardless. 

The state could try and defend freedom of expression with variable degrees of vigour, I agree.

On line three you beg the question by asserting (implicitly) that only governments restrict free speech but this is the point to be proven. Communities can also restrict freedom of speech by regularly meeting expressions of opinion they do not like with violence. Indeed, it makes no sense to separate the government from the communities it governs. Often free speech is restricted because the citizens (or groups of them) do not like what some people are saying.    

[Savannah]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I really have zero idea about what you're talking about here or what your point is, but that website does look snazzy. Here', here's another website about where one punch can kill. 

And as no one has advocated that one group's views don't merit free speech protection, you're cool, right?

Kalbear is getting more and more confused.

Did you know btw that often it's not even the punch that kills, but the fall that comes after? 

[The Anti-Targ]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

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

I'm on the side of the law.

Freedom of speech laws do not protect citizens from the actions of other citizens. Freedom of speech laws protect citizens from the actions of governments. It is the criminal code that protects (or tries to act as a deterrent) citizens from the actions of other citizens. So all this lather about freedom of speech when one person lays out another because of what someone has said is irrelevent. The only discussion to be had is whether the assaulter should be criminally charged for assault, and whether incitement can legitimately be taken into account when determining guilt / punishment. 

I am personally against violence. So punching someone out is morally wrong in almost all situations, and so should be legally wrong in almost all situations too. I ascribe to the philosophy that it is better to be killed than to kill. My only exception really is when a defenceless 3rd party is involved. 

However, recognising that very few people align with my views, and the law definitely allows for a lot more permissible violence than what I am personally comfortable with, then situations where social conflict lead to violence can be very grey when it comes to appropriate legal consequences. And when it's citizen v citizen then spouting on about freedom of speech just muddies things up and gets people all hot and bothered about something that is irrelevant to the situation.

[Squab]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

If it's not deemed a "true" threat (as in, there is good reason to believe you might actually do it), it is constitutionally protected by the 1st Amendment. So technically, saying "nazis should be punched in the face" is totally legal, just as nazis have the right to say stuff like "the jews ought to be exterminated."

I am not questioning anyones right to say anything. I think advocating violence as a solution to anything is great for those with power but hurts the weak.

[Rippounet]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I may be wrong here. But, I believe there is a case out of the 1940s, where the Supreme Court actually ruled that the government actually has a duty to protect you from violence when speaking.

I believe that particular case involved Jehovah's witnesses.

I can't find it, but I'm interested to know if you can find the name of the case. Closest I have is the infamous Barnette case which basically authorized Jehovah's witnesses not to salute the flag after a previous SCOTUS decision made it compulsory, which kind of led to a wave of violence against witnesses. Barnette is one of my favorite decisions BTW, because of this famous extract from the majority opinion:
 

Quote

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

Might be relevant soon, eh?

[butterbumps!]

30 minutes ago, sifth said:

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?

alright, why don't you stop trying to turn this into a nazi-sympathizer-witch hunt.     No where did I say hate speech was cool and we should do nothing about it.  

I expressed genuine concern for whether responding to speech with violence will lead to more dismal outcomes by legitimizing it on both sides of the spectrum.    My concern isn't merely about the moral rightness, but the efficacy of using violence as well.  

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm not advocating against speech. I'm advocating violence against a specific ideology practiced by a specific person (and not people in general either), which has shown to be incredibly dangerous to liberal democracies, has shown to encourage others to inflict violence on others and has shown to be otherwise valueless. 

Those assholes are not 'free to retaliate'. And if that is the problem, then the problem does not exist with the laws of speech - it exists with the laws that are allowing said assholes to be free to retaliate. 

The reproductive rights assholes that bomb and kill are doing so without any threat of violence to them whatsoever. Why would you think that this will now change if someone punches a nazi? Do you think they are now going to be more emboldened? I doubt it. They certainly weren't when, say, the LA riots hit. 

It might lead to continued escalation, but my gut feeling is that said escalation has already occurred. As to the moral high ground, I don't think it matters in the least. Being morally acceptable when you are politely asking people not to please be talking about being enslaved and murdered really doesn't work. Where that point is can be argued, but I think we can agree that it exists at some level, and we're haggling over the price.

If I'm not far mistaken, it seems like you're saying that in the case of violence against hate speech, the violence is kind of like self-defense.   I think that's a really fair point, and these nazis often do threaten physical harm.   I can get on board with this distinction.  (though, I do think that any number of wingnut causes get spun into a kind of self-defense/ protection narrative to justify violence as well; the abortion clinic bombers do so to save the lives of the vulnerable, so they say).

idk if I agree that the escalation has already occurred.  I think things are still pretty peaceful right now, and fear they could get significantly worse.   I kind of do think some of these alt-idiots will be emboldened by the punch, though I strongly doubt the punch itself will lead to anything significant.   But there's a lot of space between punching people and just asking for change politely, right?  I guess it sounds like we're both kind of in that "haggle zone" of what that is, as you say.

24 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

"Disingenuous"?  I'm certainly not being that.  I acknowledged my own hypocrisy in this situation, and also pointed out that I find nothing comparable between a nazi and a healthcare worker.  That's exactly why I'm pretty ok with someone punching a nazi but against someone murdering a healthcare provider or bombing a clinic.  

I've become quite the pacifist over the years.  However, I draw the line at nazis.  There's is an incredibly dangerous ideology that is harmful to everyone.  It should be fought against.  

Sure, and neither do I, but lunatics on the right have felt a moral obligation to stop fetus "genocide."  I don't disagree nazi bullshit needs to be fought hard.   I'm just not sure how I feel about doing so through violence, largely in terms of possible escalation, despite how cathartic punching them may be.  But I could be off on whether it escalates, idk.   

ETA:  apologies, btw, for misinterpreting the emphasis of your post.   I thought you were lambasting me for "comparing" the two, as opposed to a comment on "hypocrisy."

[Chaircat Meow]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm on the side of the law.

Freedom of speech laws do not protect citizens from the actions of other citizens. Freedom of speech laws protect citizens from the actions of governments. It is the criminal code that protects (or tries to act as a deterrent) citizens from the actions of other citizens. So all this lather about freedom of speech when one person lays out another because of what someone has said is irrelevent. The only discussion to be had is whether the assaulter should be criminally charged for assault, and whether incitement can legitimately be taken into account when determining guilt / punishment. 

I am personally against violence. So punching someone out is morally wrong in almost all situations, and so should be legally wrong in almost all situations too. I ascribe to the philosophy that it is better to be killed than to kill. My only exception really is when a defenceless 3rd party is involved. 

However, recognising that very few people align with my views, and the law definitely allows for a lot more permissible violence than what I am personally comfortable with, then situations where social conflict lead to violence can be very grey when it comes to appropriate legal consequences. And when it's citizen v citizen then spouting on about freedom of speech just muddies things up and gets people all hot and bothered about something that is irrelevant to the situation.

I was addressing the question from a philosophical point of view, not a legalistic one.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I was addressing the question from a philosophical point of view, not a legalistic one.

Have I not answered both?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

I can't find it, but I'm interested to know if you can find the name of the case. Closest I have is the infamous Barnette case which basically authorized Jehovah's witnesses not to salute the flag after a previous SCOTUS decision made it compulsory, which kind of lead to a wave of violence against witnesses. Barnette is one of my favorite decisions BTW, because of this famous extract from the majority opinion:
 

I might be fucking this up a bit. But, I think in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case where the court established the "fighting words" exception, if I recall correctly, it suggested in dicta that the state did have such a duty.

[Chaircat Meow]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Have I not answered both?

You just described how a particular legal code works in practice.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I might have fucked this up a bit. But, I think in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case where the court established the "fighting words" exception, if I recall correctly, it suggested in dicta that the state did have such a duty.

Reading the Wiki on that case it looks like the cops stood there watching Chaplinsky actually being physically assaulted and did nothing. From my perspective that is the cops simply failing to step in when criminal assault is happening in front of them, and this is showing an institutional violation  (the police being an arm of govt) of free speech because they are letting the crowd (and thereby tacitly supporting) physically attempt to stop the person from speaking. So it's still about what a govt agency that is present in the moment is doing or not doing, and it's not actually about the actions of the individuals. The actions of the individuals assaulting Chaplinksy are still unlawful under the criminal code as assault. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Just now, Chaircat Meow said:

You just described how a particular legal code works in practice.

 

That's not all I wrote.