Jump to content

U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Yep.  I mean, some of those people were promoting violence.  So by the logic of this thread, the DOJ actions seem reasonable here.

Nothing scary at all about trusting the government to appropriately attack free speech.  

One of the main reasons that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton's baby, the Alien and Sedition Acts killed John Adams receiving a second term as POTUS.  It was immeasurably protested across the board, except by a few of the richest types, north and south.  Though the south had no qualms whatsoever shutting down free speech that it didn't want spoke -- or written, or heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Yes founded on free speech as part of a social contract, that is to say, with inherent limits, not free speech unlimited to include genocide or snuff or pedophilia, etc. 

There are boundaries--that's why it's a contract--and pure anarchy is something no one (other than far right and far left extremists more interested in purity of idea than participation in society) wants.

Not invited yet: bullets that only hit bad people, and laws that authorities don't exploit. Surveillance only used on terrorists...right? Right.

Just imagine that the power to shut up ideas we don't like is being put into the hands of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. Keep it to illegal acts for the sake of the minorities that will otherwise inevitably be 'dangerous'. The Nazis banned unwelcome ideas long before they banned unwelcome people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

A car was used to kill and maim.  How is that different?  Unless you're saying Fields was too poor to have that very expensive personal arsenal?

Also, the cops were too intimidated and frightened by all those guns to intervene . . . .

Also, did you miss how frightened that young woman was who interrogated the armed lunatic in that video?  She had a far more backbone than I do, to confront him as she did.

Fair point. That car was absolutely used as a murder weapon. 

Agree regarding the interviewer. She did a really good job in a pressure filled situation. I loved when she flummoxed Skinhead Mouthpiece Douchebag by listing off numerous examples of White Supremacist Terror after he said "see you have to go back to Oklahoma City for an example". No, no she didn't. Then his rejoinder was astoundingly weak. Bet you can't name all 19 hijackers from 9/11. Shut the fuck up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think that solves your problem, because you still have to define what constitutes 'promoting ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing'

You've just sort of shifted the problem around a bit.

 

 

On another note, I'm sad this thread isn't titled 'In Godwin we trust.....'

Meh,

I think the language could be sufficiently drafted to target the intended speech, without chilling speech too much that was not intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Meh,

I think the language could be sufficiently drafted to target the intended speech, without chilling speech too much that was not intended.

I really don't think it can, and there's a fair amount of evidence for this.  There's just too much subjectivity involved.

Give me an example of how it would be codified. I can't really imagine a way to narrow those definitions that would be specific enough to prevent the risk of abuse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Swordfish said:

I really don't think it can, and there's a fair amount of evidence for this.  There's just too much subjectivity involved.  

 

What evidence are you referring to?
Also, I do think it could be drafted narrowly and I would want it to be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How is your mouth being slapped shut now? 

 

Other countries with anti-nazi speech laws had first hand account of nazi terror visited upon their societies. A number of them were mutated by that horrific ideology. Those societies then collectively decided to adopt that policy through a democratic process.I think that this is a reasonable idea to discuss, and if you could get enough people onboard to support the passage of such a law, so be it. Failing that, we're talking about suppression of speech in a country that was founded in part on a belief in Free Speech.  

Let's see...gerrymandering, the prison system, detention camps, transgender folks being banned from existing in the military (that goes way beyond DADT), the DOJ requesting the names of visitors to anti-Trumps.  If you think these things don't serve to silence people, you're an idiot. 

And again, we're talking about nazism.  This is about whether or not white terrorists should be allowed to continue recruiting to their terrorist organizations unfettered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think that solves your problem, because you still have to define what constitutes 'promoting ethnic violence, genocide, or ethnic cleansing'

You've just sort of shifted the problem around a bit.

 

 

On another note, I'm sad this thread isn't titled 'In Godwin we trust.....'

Considering Godwin's opinion on the matter... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

What evidence are you referring to?

Look at college campuses, for example, where we see all kinds of offensive speech being branded as violence.  Look at the consequences being leveled on faculty and students for simply engaging in dialogue.

 

Take, for example this:

Quote

At Emory University, certain conduct that is permissible off campus is not allowed on campus. Specifically, some speech and behaviors are prohibited in Emory's version of what are derogatorily labeled "politically correct" codes but are more commonly known as hate speech codes. Emory's code begins with its definition of banned behavior.

Discriminatory harassment includes conduct (oral, written, graphic or physical) directed against any person or, group of persons because of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or veteran's status and that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that person or group of persons.

How is this kind of stuff not subject to the very problem you have outlined so well earlier in this thread?  Namely, that there is no way to meaningfully quantify what is reasonably considered offensive, demeaning or intimidating.

We already have a situation in this country where groups are actively trying to blur the line between speech and action.

 

 

Quote

Also, I do think it could be drafted narrowly and I would want it to be so.

How would this look though?  Without defining specific phrases and words, I just don't see how you can narrow it down, and who gets to arbitrate what is and is not acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And at some point if we continue along that path, your mouth will be shut. And many other mouths as well. 

Germany seems to be getting along fine without that happening.

Hell, they have less Nazis in power then the US does. Which is a hell of a thing when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure if you've seen this or if it's been posted here, but here ya go:

 

yeah, I saw that....

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

Considering Godwin's opinion on the matter... 

That seems like a pretty good endorsement for the thread title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How is your mouth being slapped shut now? 

 

Other countries with anti-nazi speech laws had first hand account of nazi terror visited upon their societies. A number of them were mutated by that horrific ideology. Those societies then collectively decided to adopt that policy through a democratic process.I think that this is a reasonable idea to discuss, and if you could get enough people onboard to support the passage of such a law, so be it. Failing that, we're talking about suppression of speech in a country that was founded in part on a belief in Free Speech.  

The US fought a literal Civil War over white supremacy and then "enjoyed" like almost 100 years of Jim Crow. And still "enjoys" more of this kind of shit to this day.

I'm pretty sure the US has first hand experience with being terrorized by people like this.

The reason the US has continued to not collectively do anything about it is because those white supremacists remain in power. They even have an overt member as the President now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OldGimletEye  Here's an even better example of what I'm talking about:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/26/at-the-university-of-oregon-no-more-free-speech-for-professors-on-subjects-such-as-race-religion-sexual-orientation/?utm_term=.f01e85145e27

Quote

Further, the students said, they consider MacDonald's mere presence on campus "a form of violence."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Let's see...gerrymandering, the prison system, detention camps, transgender folks being banned from existing in the military (that goes way beyond DADT), the DOJ requesting the names of visitors to anti-Trumps.  If you think these things don't serve to silence people, you're an idiot. 

And again, we're talking about nazism.  This is about whether or not white terrorists should be allowed to continue recruiting to their terrorist organizations unfettered.  

But you can talk about these things. You can rail against these shit policies. No one is shutting you up. No one is preventing you from making as big a deal about these issues as you choose to. That's Freedom of Speech. That's what you are putting at risk when you start to consider limiting that right in any significant way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Look at college campuses, for example, where we see all kinds of offensive speech being branded as violence.  Look at the consequences being leveled on faculty and students for simply engaging in dialogue.

 

Take, for example this:

How is this kind of stuff not subject to the very problem you have outlined so well earlier in this thread?  Namely, that there is no way to meaningfully quantify what is reasonably considered offensive, demeaning or intimidating.

We already have a situation in this country where groups are actively trying to blur the line between speech and action.

 

 

How would this look though?  Without defining specific phrases and words, I just don't see how you can narrow it down, and who gets to arbitrate what is and is not acceptable.

Okay a couple of things here.
I'm not in denial that rules or leglistation can be badly drafted. They can be. So yeah, any proposed amendment would and should get a great deal of scrutiny.
Also when it comes to "restricted enviroments" like universities, employment situations, the military and schools, I'm more willing to allow speech to be restricted based on it's content.
But, when we are talking about speech in general public discourse ie in magazines, public spaces, in print, the internet etc. etc. I'm personally a lot less willing to let speech be regulated on it's content.
And finally, I don't disagree, that at times, some of this stuff does go overboard.
And like I said before some on the left do have a free speech problem. .That said, and absolutist stance on free speech really isn't intellectually defensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

How would this look though?  Without defining specific phrases and words, I just don't see how you can narrow it down, and who gets to arbitrate what is and is not acceptable.

Well I'd certainly write a very tight definition of the word "promoting". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay a couple of things here.
I'm not in denial that rules or leglistation can be badly drafted. They can be. So yeah, any proposed amendment would and should get a great deal of scrutiny.
Also when it comes to "restricted enviroments" like universities, employment situations, the military and schools, I'm more willing to allow speech to be restricted based on it's content.
But, when we are talking about speech in general public discourse ie in magazines, public spaces, in print, the internet etc. etc. I'm personally a lot less willing to let speech be regulated on it's content.
And finally, I don't disagree, that at times, some of this stuff does go overboard.
And like I said before some on the left do have a free speech problem. .That said, and absolutist stance on free speech really isn't intellectually defensible.

I'm not taking an absolutist stance on free speech.  

And I think the question is not whether it would be written poorly, but whether it COULD be written in a way that is narrow enough to not be dangerous.  I don't believe that it could.

And I cite the examples from universities not to ignore the difference between private or 'restricted' environments I agree with you that they are different), but as an example of the current climate, and how such well meaning initiatives can turn dangerous, because in theend it's always going to be open to interpretation.

 

And it's not just about whether or not speech on campuses is restricted, it's about incidents like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html

It seems to me that freedom of speech requires more stringent defense today than it has in a very long time, not less.

 

 

Quote

Well I'd certainly write a very tight definition of the word "promoting". 

How?  What would it look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an aside about the ACLU, I modestly support them every month, and I think I will continue to do so. During the time when the travel ban was about to take place, they did outstanding work, and I believe even sent lawyers down to airports helping stranded folk re-enter the country. Not to mention all the lawsuits filed against the administration. Being a supporter of the ACLU give me some comfort if I were to leave the country about my chances of getting back in.

As for the free speech/Nazi debate, its hard to fault them for being true to their guiding principle, which has to do with the First Amendment. So in theory they are being consistent. Its a slightly different debate if they should dedicate some of their finite resources towards the more unpopular cases (such as this one, and others in the past). Dont quite know their thinking as to how they prioritize these cases, but I'd be interested to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...