U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

 

clearing quote.

 

I can't think of many situations when it's okay to just deck someone.  I also really liked watching Spencer get hit.  Felt right.  I wouldn't want to extend that concept much beyond that event.  I just can't but help imagine how someone on the receiving end of his bullshit must feel, and as such I couldn't blame them if they punched him like that, or hope they'd be prosecuted.  

Because the shit this dude is advocating for is for their lives to be less.

I am a big, blue collar, straight white dude.  Spencer would probably tell me im the fucking salt of the earth. I know I'd tell him to get fucked, but I'd like to think that for the sake of my three non-white, much younger siblings, among others, that I'd have the courage to punch him in the face.  

Don't know how it'd play out but I know that's how I feel so it really wouldn't be fair of me to condemn these punchings, despite whatever legal or precedence or philosophical stuff I can intellectually consider.  So I could only imagine how say, a gay person or person of color, who this guy is actually hating on, could feel and I'm not about to try to temper that or tell them not to hit the dude.

Additionally, this isn't some fucking loser guy at the end of the bar.  This is a fucking loser who has been interviewed on NPR and all sorts of shit.  He put himself out there.  His message is getting attention.   He's probably loving bthis attention from the assaults and part of me feels sick for approving of anything he'd enjoy.  

 

But fuck him.  

[Stubby]

[MOD]

Several posts have been deleted and a user has been suspended.

Of course this is a highly emotive topic but that is no excuse to be abusive to other members.

Please all take a deep breath.

[/MOD]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

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.

Thank you.  This is my thought as well.  Spencer is a dispicable human being but advocating violence in non-self defense contexts will only make things worse for the reasons you suggest.

[Samantha Stark]

Does Nazi punching enabling just include actual Nazis, or is anyone right of center considered a Nazi and thus punch-able? 

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not all I wrote.

Well you'll have to tell me what you think the relevant bits are I missed.

My view is that we say we think freedom of speech is a good thing because we think people should be able to express their opinions without being subjected to violence. And if we object to the government subjecting people to violence/coercion for expressing opinions because this is wrong it follows we should not endorse private citizens doing the same thing. I gave the Bangladesh example. This is a moral point and it does not depend on the specific ways any particular legal system operates.

And, for clarity, I couldn't care less about the odd punch but I objected to Kalbear's view that freedom of speech pertained purely to a safeguard against the government. I think it is obvious this is not the case.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Thank you.  This is my thought as well.  Spencer is a dispicable human being but advocating violence in non-self defense contexts will only make things worse for the reasons you suggest.

no one needs to advocate it.  They can just kind of turn a blind eye, or say "don't we have bigger fish to fry than the dude that just punched Richard Spencer?"

 

What would be ironic is if this is a PR stunt by Spencer's people...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

51 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 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.

OGE,

I'm with you.

[ThinkerX]

Those hammering on 'Freedom of Speech' are so focused on a single tree they are missing the forest they are standing in.

Trump and at least some of his top advisors come from the corporate world.  That bunch long ago worked out ways to keep the facts necessary for truthful free speech suppressed, and appear to be applying elements of that to politics (though its been going on for a while now).

Non-disclosure agreements.  Massive lawsuits intended to silence critics.  Settlements whose terms cannot be disclosed.  Gag orders.  All legal and well established.

Plus, as per the Bush II crew, when that doesn't work, declare huge reams of data secret.  (This seems to have been mostly forgotten by the posters here.  Took a look through a 2005-6 era history of the Bush II years a couple months back - this issue was brought up repeatedly by the authors - Bush II and company skated a *lot* of serious charges via classification of info as 'secret.')

What good is free speech without good data?

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

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.   

Without a white supremacist in the white house, one who is celebrated and supported by various nazi groups, it probably would not escalate at all.  Punching a lone nazi who randomly has a loud temporary platform would typically just drive them back to their fringe websites where they generally enjoy a tiny audience.  

Recently, they've adopted coded language to remove the nazi/white supremacist stigma and it's served to gain them a larger following of defenders and sympathizers as well as supporters joining their movement.  This has resulted in these voices being provided space in the mainstream media (I don't let the MSM off the hook for this).  In my opinion it's already escalated.  Their ideology is decidedly violent.  Regardless of what Spencer claims, there is nothing peaceful about ethnic cleansing.  It's always violent.  

I'm ok with punching this nazi in the face.  I'm ok with hoping the puncher is never caught and ok with donating to his defense if he is caught.  I'm definitely ok with the fact that I'm personally seeing more people talking about the fact that these are nazis instead of using the coded sanitized language as though these are just simple folks with a slightly different political opinion than me.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

no one needs to advocate it.  They can just kind of turn a blind eye, or say "don't we have bigger fish to fry than the dude that just punched Richard Spencer?"

 

What would be ironic is if this is a PR stunt by Spencer's people...

LtI,

I've wondered about that too.  I still don't think punching someone who isn't directly physically threatening you or someone else is proper.

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Reading the Wiki on that case it looks like the cops stood there watching Chaplinsky actually being physically assaulted and did nothing.

Yeah, but that's an alternate version of events that was not used by the Court.

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

I think I found a decision very close to what interests us with Feiner v. New York (1951). Problem is, what you seemed to be referring to was actually the minority opinion written by justice Hugo Black who did argue that the police should have protected Feiner from those who threatened him (instead of arresting him).
Based on Feiner, it would seem that it's really the other way around: it's up to a speaker to moderate their speech so as not to elicit violent reaction.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LtI,

I've wondered about that too.  I still don't think punching someone who isn't directly physically threatening you or someone else is proper.

It might not be proper.  But in some instances, it might be less proper not to.  I'm basically trying to justify an argument from emotion with reasons, and it's not really bothering me that I can't come up with much.  I know thats not a compelling argument but I. Okay with that in this instance.  

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

It might not be proper.  But in some instances, it might be less proper not to.  I'm basically trying to justify an argument from emotion with reasons, and it's not really bothering me that I can't come up with much.  I know thats not a compelling argument but I. Okay with that in this instance.  

 

 

I sympathize with the emotion.  But I still think punching someone in a non-self defense context is wrong.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Yeah, but that's an alternate version of events that was not used by the Court.

I think I found a decision very close to what interests us with Feiner v. New York (1951). Problem is, what you seemed to be referring to was actually the minority opinion written by justice Hugo Black who did argue that the police should have protected Feiner from those who threatened him (instead of arresting him).
Based on Feiner, it would seem that it's really the other way around: it's up to a speaker to moderate their speech so as not to elicit violent reaction.

Well thanks for doing that research, since I'm too lazy.

Anyway, interesting tidbit on Hugo Black writing the dissenting opinion. From what I know, Black was a pretty strong First Amendment guy. Now, let me see, wasn't Earl Warren appointed around 1953 or 1954? I wouldn't be surprised if Black's opinion got referred to later at some point, under the Warren Court.

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Anyway, interesting tidbit on Hugo Black writing the dissenting opinion. From what I know, Black was a pretty strong First Amendment guy. Now, let me see, wasn't Earl Warren appointed around 1953 or 1954? I wouldn't be surprised if Black's opinion got referred to later at some point, under the Warren Court.

That's definitely a possibility. It wouldn't be the first time that a minority opinion was used as a basis for a later decision. Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Fergusson springs to mind.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I sympathize with the emotion.  But I still think punching someone in a non-self defense context is wrong.

I think it's defense of someone.  Not going to try to claim any kind of moral highground here.

 

I also think context is important.  If this had happened in 2009 I'd be a little less supportive and feeling a bit more like the masked face puncher was damaging a cause or garnering undeserved sympathy for a shithead.  

I don't feel like that's the case here.

[Stubby]

OT,

1. There is no guaranteed freedom of speech in the Australian Constitution.  It was implied into the Constitution by a decision of the High Court.  The HCA found that we have freedom to discuss political and governmental affairs, as a necessary pre-requisite to good government.

2.  That implication has been found by the HCA to be a good defence to a defamation action brought by a federal politician: Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994).

3.  Critically, the implication is that the only speech that is protected is that relating to government and political issues.

4.  Saf Fisher wrote a paper on the issue in 2006:  (2006) 8 University of Technology Sydney Law Review 21

This is a quote from that paper that summarises the core issue:

Quote

... hate speech is directed at private individuals. Any political message intended to be communicated is peripheral to the core message of racial inferiority intended to be communicated. The veil of constitutional protection extends to offensive and insulting language to prevent agents or instruments of the state from being used to suppress political dissent or criticism of public officials or figures. In the context of hate speech, the machinery of the state would be deployed to protect individuals from harm rather than stifle dissent.

5.  Punching someone is a physical assault.  If it is not the government applying the 'punch' it is not something that either the USA or Australia calls an imposition on free speech.

6.  In  R.A.V v City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 1992, the US Supreme Court found that the boundary between free and hate speech was not as difficult to imagine as critics of hate speech legislation like to present. This quote is again from Fisher's article:

Quote

Fundamentally, the free speech/hate speech dichotomy is false. It presupposes that it is necessary to elect between freedom of speech and the regulation of hate speech. It assumes that regulation of hate speech is inconsistent with the preservation of freedom of speech. However, once it is accepted that free speech is not absolute and that it is preferable to conceptualise speech as existing on a continuum, the dichotomy collapses and the conceptual barriers against the regulation of hate speech do not appear as insurmountable.

7.  One thing that a majority of persons arguing on this issue overlook is the facts in any one case.  It is very rare for Western Courts to decide matters without a background in facts. In this case, Spencer was espousing stuff that was proposing genocide. Genocide affects individuals. It is the ultimate expression of violence to a class of individuals. Inciting violence against individuals was not, in my view, ever intended to be protected by the free speech provisions.

It follows that I do not accept that free speech was the core issue in the Spencer scenario.  The core issue was Spencer's conduct and had nothing to do with the exercise of government.  As to the assault, the individual concerned would need to prove provocation as a Defence.  That is a whole other discussion, but I would note that 'self-defence' or 'defence of another' would not be relevant.

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

It might shock you, but people without criminal records were subjects to deportation, before Obama decided to play emperor and unilaterally rewrote immigration laws he did not like. Trump is simply restoring previous lawful status quo. And 5 billion is a joke.

Obama actually deported 2.5 million. Many of Bush's  actions on immigration were returns, where undocumented workers are moved, but not processed, meaning no criminal felony record is created. It's not clear who deported more. Yet you label Bush's regime the lawful status quo. What are you basing this on? Or any Republican administration the lawful status quo? Also, the Executive has massive leeway on immigration. This doesn't make Obama an Emperor. And you seem perfectly fine with Trump employing the same executive discretion over immigration and not going to Congress. Why isn't he an Emperor?

Quote

Of course, these philosophical debates mask some genuine ambiguity about the statistics themselves. Bush oversaw a lot more returns, but, experts note, it’s hard to say how many more individual immigrants he actually deported. Many people tried and failed to make multiple border crossings. Each one would count in the statistics separately. This is true of all immigration data, but experts say it’s much more true of returns, just because the record-keeping is so informal. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/117412/deportations-under-obama-vs-bush-who-deported-more-immigrants

Who's the Real Deporter-In-Chief: Bush or Obama?

[felice]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I still don't think punching someone who isn't directly physically threatening you or someone else is proper.

The problem is by the time it comes to literal physical self defense, you're up against a squad of brownshirts, and throwing a punch isn't going to help you much. It's a complex issue; I'm not at all fond of violence, but there is a point where it becomes a necessary evil - the question is when. Spencer certainly is a despicable, dangerous person.

[The Marquis de Leech]

My worry is simply this: while punching Nazis strikes me as the most enjoyable political pass-time ever, this has the potential to escalate. It's a short step from punching Nazis, to Nazis punching leftists, to both sides organising themselves, to Weimar-style street fighting. Once you go down the route of political violence, you don't know where you will end up.

No-one wants a re-run of the Spanish Civil War here.