I do believe in free speech. But I believe that inherant in the concept of free speech is the responsponsibility to take responsibility for what you have said/done. This is a semi-public forum, but it's also a community. There are social responsibilities and unspoken rules which exist in any community.
If you walked around to a group of your friends and screamed "Twunt! I hate you!" at them every time you saw them, well, yes, you would be exercising your right to free speech. You would also find that, unless you have very tolerant friends, you would soon be shunned and eventually ostracised.
The unspoken rule of ILM, and indeed, most of the internet if not the common rules of debate, is that you may disagree with a person's opinions, but you may not disrespect the *person*.
"Protecting" people is a different issue. I don't feel the need to be protected from other assholes, but I do like it when my friends stick up for me. That's just my way. Everybody has a right to express their opinion, even if it's that they dislike me. This is not the first forum I've ever come under attack in.
If censorship is necessary to preserve a community, then I guess it's necessary censorship. Because, after all, this community is only a subset of society, if a person does not agree with the social rules of a community, they are free to leave it and find another, unlike societies or countries or things that we do not choose.
I think I should post this before it gets too long, and continue in another chunk.
― Kate the Saint, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Richard Tunnicliffe, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
x0x0
― |\|0|2/|\4|\| |=4'/, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Who's responsible for that anti-robin carmody forum, BTW? That's pretty fucking manky isn't it? What a l@m3r...(sigh) xoxo
Yeah, we need a moderator but not in the traditional sense. Flames are minimal here and that's down to the intelligence of people posting. Also the collective sense of fair play is pretty strong here; nobody lets an insult pass without at least one supportive comment for the target.
I personally would rather know someone has been edited out than not, the latter faintly evokes aura of secret police.
― suzy, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
If you have any profile outside a message board, you're fair game for a verbal kicking on it IMO. BUT remember - let him who is without GIRLY SUGAR POP cast the first stone.
― Alasdair, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Anyhow, I'll rehash what I said: I didn't agree with Kate's self- promotion, but that's why I didn't read the thread. How hard is it to avoid things you already know you aren't going to be pleased with? It strikes me funny that this is being treated like a nation instead of a bar, it's the bloody internet.
This isn't to say that I'm for deletion, because i'm not. But if the moderators, ie the owners of the bar, are, it's their right.
― Ally, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― mark s, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
You said yourself that you thought better of doing it, because you knew it would rub certain people the wrong way. Me, personally - I don't give a shit what you post. Post about your band and that other godawful band you used to talk about so much on the mailing list all you want, I can personally ignore it quite well. I mean, I only read the Lollies thread because it was brought up here, to be honest. I don't personally like you using the mailing list or the message board as promotion for your band. Other people don't mind. I have no problem with you doing it, because I just don't read it.
The point is, I agree with Momus in that if you're going to open yourself up for it by posting incessantly about your band and effectively spamming the board - WHETHER I CARE PERSONALLY ABOUT IT OR NOT - then you can't get offended when you get flamed, and neither should anyone else.
However, as mark just said - this is a bar, he is the bouncer, if you don't like this bar, go, and in the end that is my opinion, and being as I find Momus to be the world's most offensive person, I'm glad I don't agree with him in the end result.
Kate, for someone who has been rather smug about how smart she is on several intelligence-related past threads and how stupid everyone else is, you don't really comprehend that well once you take something to be even the vaguest personal insult. And, yes, THAT is a personal insult, unlike the self-promotion comment.
― Madchen, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Nick, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Tim, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
We all talk about our jobs, our social lives, our friends- these things affect our worlds and our worldviews. If I talk about the Lollies a lot (and, as Sterling pointed out, I really don't think that I talk about them half as much as Momus talks about himself) is it because they ARE my job, my social life and my friends.
It *IS* hypocritical of you to have a go at me for my "self promotion", Ally, considering you are unable to post on a single thread without bringing your life, your job, your social life into it. So spare me the childish d**mp*tr*ol-esque rants. Please.
Like I JUST FUCKING SAID, for those of us who can't comprehend simple English, I have no problem with you talking about your little band. It's great, it's fantastic. I don't necessarily agree with someone using a message board as someplace to post their own tour dates, but THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T READ THE BLASTED THREAD. Simple, yes, no, maybe?
Momus talks about himself ten times more than anyone I can possibly think of ever encountering in my life and every single post of his starts off with some ridiculous tale about people in Japan mobbing him or some awful song of his, and is being completely hypocritical for slamming you, yes, but regardless the point still stands: if you're going to self-promote your music, then you're going to have to put up with childish people getting an attitude about it and flaming you.
Or, what, has it become against ILE/ILM rules to disagree with you, luv? Saying that I don't like you promoting your band and don't read those threads is hardly the same as "having a go at you" and quite frankly I'm tired of every fucking comment that you perceive as negative towards you being taken as "having a go at you". You want to start a PMS war (very mannish of you, btw), here goes: go take a goddamned Midol and call us in the morning.
And that is all I'm going to say on this thread, I'm not reading it anymore because quite frankly it's useless. I basically agree that the post against Kate should've been deleted on the grounds that this isn't a free speech institution but more like a club, and she goes off the handle? Fuck it, I can't be bothered - unlike some people, I know when to stop and just ignore the situation, so feel free to get in the last word, like you always have to (cf. doompatrol).
Mind you this can be a dodgy old boozer at times
― cabbage, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Emma, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Martin, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― scott, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Mike has won, and I'm off to get some coffee.
Who's coming?
Er, I'll get me coat...
― Paul Strange, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Isn't Strange Fruit, the label, named after 'Stange Fruit', the song about lynching?
Isn't lynching the most extreme form of censorship known to man?
Don't the white-ass rednecks who lynch sit round in bars drinking Southern Comfort and relying on their faithful barstaff to remove any black people who have the temerity to even think about coming in and ordering a drink?
But that's okay, isn't it, because the owners of those bars call the shots, and there are always black bars where the black folks can go and drink with people who think like them, no?
― Momus, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
No. They drink Bud Light or Miller Light.
Do I have to be the Token Black Guy again and point out that this particular line of logic is deeply insulting and trivializing to anyone who has actually had to endure racism?
― Dan Perry, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
This analogy strikes me as fatuous. Seems to trivialise race hate and segregation.
We've never had to lynch anyone at Strange Fruit. Not yet, anyway. And the Strange Fruit club, surprisingly, isn't named after the record label. We took the name from a northern soul compilation one of the original founders owned which featured lots of tracks which, although they didn't really fit together very well, sounded really good. Which is kind of what we're about. Other names, which we never used but nearly did, include 'Bitterscene' and 'Pull The Wires...'
But anyway... we're just an organisation who try to put on clubs and gigs and ensure that bands get a fair deal. Unless we don't like them. In which case we lynch them.
Dan, I reckon the redneck posse are on Coors.
As far as I know Billie Holliday was never knowingly bigging up the lynch party. I agree with Hanle y.
― Pete, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Very few people seem to have agreed. Apparently my mistake was in seeing ILM as being a mini-nation, with first amendment-style protection of free speech, when everyone else sees it as a bar. My point about lynching (and apologies if the sarcasm wasn't clearly signalled) was that the model of the bar as ideal civic space is not a very tempting one. Bars are feisty places policed by private security (invariably fascists). Being told that if you don't like it you can drink elsewhere is not a great comfort.
Yes, I am contradicting the point I made in my Freaky Trigger interview about how it would be pompous for Hispanics to 'represent' Chinese in their local radio stations in New York. But actually, the racial pluralism in the US often comes at a price, which is racial separatism. The Chinese and the Hispanics ignore each other completely. In Britain we at least try (less and less successfully, it seems) to get everyone in the same pub. If only on TV.
I still prefer the model of the nation to the model of the pub, because pubs only codify things like 'how to play darts' whereas nations try to codify things like freedom of speech. And I believe that harmony which exists only because you silence unharmonious elements is not worth having. As Milton said in 'Areopagitica', the virtue which is never tested by exposure to corruption is no virtue at all.
What seems to be bothering you is the idea that one person in particular is in a position to decide what constitutes Unacceptable Behaviour, which is a reasonable concern. But this being a fairly democratic place -- as evidenced by one post removal striking up such a lengthy debate -- I get the feeling that as soon as any moderator seems to be overstepping his jurisdiction, he'll be taken to task for it rather quickly. So in that sense, well done for bringing up the issue -- whether or not the removal was justified, I suppose it's useful to have someone playing devil's advocate in such situations.
― Nitsuh, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
― DG, Thursday, 9 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link
Maybe kids today take spam for granted and don't hear alarm bells ringing when they see one moderator (Tom) protecting commercial activity while, not three inches downthread, another (Mark) fails to protect free speech.
I mean, really, was there really no-one else who got even the teensiest little bit worried by that particular scissors manoeuvre?
For a start, I object to the assumption that I posted what I originally posted for the sole reason of "using ILM as a place to sell tour tickets". Clearly, Nick, you never actually *read* the original post, chosing instead to simply use it as a springboard for your own agenda.
We keep a press agency for promotion, and we have actually spend a great deal of the past 2 days talking to regional press. If you'd read the post more carefully, you'd have actually realised the intentions were something else:
I quote I thought this might be a good excuse to have regional meet-ups for those posters who don't live in London or Oxford. Here is a list of venues and dates that we will be playing. If anyone can think of pubs or cafes near said venues, please feel free to post suggestions on this thread. How is this more offensive than, say, Ned's request for meet-ups, or Ally's open invite NYC bar crawls, or even the ILE free jazz picnic?
Second, my trepidation at posting said post on ILM was not based on any notion that I should not post "self promotion" but because I realised that to post such a sort of thing was basically akin to painting a target on my back and declaring open season as flamebait for people such as d**mp*tr*l along the lines of whatever I imagine the deleted message to have been.
Imagine my surprise at the fact that two of the people who have most voiciferously expressed their disdain at my audacity at such open self promotion and "spamming" are the two people most commonly guilty of it! Hypocrisy in action!
I stand by my actions. The censorship was not mine, nor was it asked for by me. Although the bar analogy may have its faults, I still maintain the idea of ILM/E as a community, and not a nation at large.
Actions within communities IRL have consequences. Had Denis or whatever his name is actually said something offensive to me in person, I'd have either ignored him or punched him, depending on my blood alcohol content. How Momus gets from a community defending itself against disruptive and personally offensive behaviour to the sweeping statements on censorship that he's made is definitely an Olympic Gold Medal World Record in jumping to conclusions.
In this instance, it evicted (and reprimanded) someone who was merely being bitchy in a way that wouldn't be out of place on the NME Angst page. I've now read a paraphrase of the offending post and it is completely tame. Only a paranoid dread of trolls could make it seem even remotely sinister.
Momus: Since you're arguing principles here, I have a question for you: Is there any sort of speech you see as worthy of restriction? Start with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, work your way up through in-person verbal abuse, and let me know where your line is.
Second: in terms of a moderated discussion -- as it's been explicit from the get-go that this is a moderated discussion -- do you see any value in restricting certain forms of speech for the specific purpose of making the discussion as a whole more valuable to those who are interested in it? For example, in a "town hall"-style political forum, would you advocate giving an incoherent drunk unlimited time to make comments that don't seem to have any bearing on the proceedings? And if not, what differentiates that situation from this one? In both cases, the purpose of the moderation is to make the discussion more concise and accessible and pleasant toward those who are actually invested in it.
Again: just questions.
I was not worried because I trust the moderstors' judgement. If I didn't, I wouldn't post here.
I didn't mean to 'play the race card' with the Strange Fruit analogy, [...]
This statement worries me.
xpost Thanks for these. So do any of you have a specific example of some egregious miscarriage of justice that would not have transpired in the US thanks to the 1st amendment freedoms?
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:41 (seven years ago) link
@Josh, to add another perspective: in Holland you can get arrested and prosecuted for sieg heiling and chants that seem intended to incite violence ("Hamas, hamas, jews on gas" a 'popular' one among the extreme right)
what can we do or say in America that they cannot do or say in Germany
On the 'do'-part: carrying guns. I know you know this, but for nearly every country in the world this is absolutely surreal and insane. All the more because it's directly tied in with the notion that carrying a gun protects citizen's right of free speech.
― Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:53 (seven years ago) link
scotland has a law that means you can be arrested and charged if you say something "a reaonsable person would find offensive" (paraphrasing but the actual wording is similar) at a soccer game
So 10% of the population is arrested every Saturday.
― Wewlay Bewlay (Tom D.), Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:53 (seven years ago) link
Haha
(downside to Dutch defamation laws: writing "Away with the monarchy, it's 2017" on a piece of cardboard will also get you in trouble :( )
― Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 17 August 2017 21:54 (seven years ago) link
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-aclu-tensions-20170817-story.html
1934: “We do not choose our clients. Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us."2017: “We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence.”
This is the explanation:Ahilan Arulanantham, the legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said it was not the organization’s perspective on civil liberties that had changed, but the nature of the far-right groups themselves — a willingness to come to events ready for violence.
“The factual context here is shifting, given the extent to which the particular marches we’re seeing in this historical moment are armed,” said Arulanantham.
― Frederik B, Friday, 18 August 2017 00:18 (seven years ago) link
Good. Armed marches should be illegal.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:15 (seven years ago) link
Like, open carry? Do your thing. But limiting groups of people with guns should be like convenience stores limiting the number of middle school kids allowed in at a time.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:16 (seven years ago) link
The guns thing OTM, LBI. I watched that Vice doco and was staggered by all the AKs and pistols and knives this guy proudly weilded/pulled from his pants/boots. I mean fucking hell. And he said he had every intent to kill, if that was neccesary! How is that not threatening speech inciting violence???
― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:22 (seven years ago) link
If a bunch if ISIS supporters had marched thru campus waving ISIS flags and carrying torches and guns, how many milliseconds would it have taken before the troops were shooting/teargassing them to kingdom come? Why are nazis ok?
― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:23 (seven years ago) link
speaking of being allowed to kick kids out of your 7-11
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/silicon-valleys-anti-nazi-purge-kicks-into-overdrive
I hope they keep this up.
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:26 (seven years ago) link
The alternative view:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/can-silicon-valley-disrupt-its-neo-nazi-problem
Whatever. These are private businesses. They are being intolerant of intolerance. That is not the same as refusing service to people because of their ethnicity or their religion.
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:34 (seven years ago) link
(or sexual orientation or etc.)
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:35 (seven years ago) link
yep I keep seeing the Paradox of Tolerance come up, which is a good thing
― sleeve, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:35 (seven years ago) link
"speech inciting violence" has to meet very stringent requirements to be prosecuted - it has to be direct and imminent. afaik you can even say "all the jews must be killed" and that is protected speech in the US
― Mordy, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:35 (seven years ago) link
yes - we covered that some last night on Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:41 (seven years ago) link
xpost And my half argument on the other thread was, how does that freedom benefit society? More to the point, in societies that do not have that freedom, how are they hurt?
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:45 (seven years ago) link
Though god knows in our POS country, if they outlawed armed nazi marches then there would be a push to outlaw BLM, and so on. Which goes back to that (new to me, but fascinating) paradox of tolerance. I'm worried we've gone too far down that "all opinions are valid" road to turn back. As we are seeing, there can be no victory if the default inevitably boils down to "both sides do it." It's no wonder we live in a divided country, since no one is allowed or able to be dismissed as wrong anymore.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 01:51 (seven years ago) link
that doesn't seem to be the case at present.
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 01:55 (seven years ago) link
You mean this current anti-Nazi (as if that needed to be a thing) push? Yeah, dickhead in chief is still getting a sizable minority (no ironic pun intended) of support, there are still "two sides" debates on TV, even if they are getting theatrically shut down. I'm glad to see people coming out anti-Nazi, which along with "anti-rape" shouldn't even have to be a position, but I am not hopeful. I think it's all part and parcel with our stubborn anti-intellectualism as a nation. We're getting dumber and more dangerous. We don't know our history. We don't know the world. We don't know logic, we devalue education and authority. And by "we" I am generalizing, but clearly "we" includes enough voters to destabilize nearly 250 years of democracy.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 02:03 (seven years ago) link
I do like seeing this:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHehmfOXsAA2uyD.jpg
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 02:05 (seven years ago) link
Sorry, but I must now fisk your hyperbole
We're getting dumber and more dangerous.
demonstrably false, ahistorical statement
We don't know our history.
speak for yourself apparently
We don't know the world.
we are more worldly and well-travelled than any other Americans have ever been
We don't know logic, we devalue education and authority.
we are the most well-educated and scientifically savvy Americans that have ever existed
And by "we" I am generalizing, but clearly "we" includes enough voters to destabilize nearly 250 years of democracy.
only because of a stupid technicality invented 250 years ago by much nastier and more ignorant Americans than the ones we have today.
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 02:22 (seven years ago) link
I realize it is completely gauche and unfashionable to be optimistic in 2017, and I'm not trying to be, I'm just pointing out that those statements are incorrect
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 02:24 (seven years ago) link
that type of "we're the worst!" rhetoric is actually David Brooks' schtick
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Friday, 18 August 2017 02:25 (seven years ago) link
I appreciate you optimism, and am wary of arguing with anyone fighting that particular good fight. Let's just say I agree with you, but only in the grand historical sense of progress. I think we're the worst because despite all the progress we have made there are still too many pulling us backwards *for no good reason*.
Anyway, David Brooks is really the worst, we can agree on that.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 02:36 (seven years ago) link
JiC burnin' for that constitutional convention to repeal #1
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 18 August 2017 02:37 (seven years ago) link
No, I get that it serves an important purpose. But clearly it already has limits, or is not unlimited, the question is where we as a society want to set those limits. Which, yeah, slippery slope, but again, we already have *some* set limits on expression. So just as gun ownership in and of itself may not seem such a bad thing but carrying around an assault weapon does, free speech that does not allow Nazi flags (not to mention Nazi flags plus assault weapons) ... I don't know, what seems lost by allowing it seems worse than what would be lost by banning it, though I get how in the academic sense it opens us up to further erosion of liberties. To which I'd counter (mostly to myself), what is the value of liberty if armed mobs of intimidating hate groups are allowed to roam at will? That slippery slope slides both ways.
Plus, Morbs, you of all people know that that our rights are rippling illusions.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 03:48 (seven years ago) link
And man, if it was as simple as what I wanted or was "burnin' for," almost any limit on free speech would be way down the list of a million things that would supersede any such debate in the first place. Nazis marching in the fucking street, fuck that and fuck them.
I am firmly against the freedom of Nazis to express themselves.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 18 August 2017 03:56 (seven years ago) link
On ACLU changing it's policy: https://www.wsj.com/articles/aclu-changes-policy-on-defending-hate-groups-protesting-with-firearms-1503010167
― Frederik B, Friday, 18 August 2017 13:05 (seven years ago) link
But clearly it already has limits, or is not unlimited, the question is where we as a society want to set those limits.
Given that Citizens United and a host of other corporation friendly rulings are decided on Free Speech grounds these days, I don't know if "we as a society" even have a say in what's considered Constitutional.
― President Keyes, Friday, 18 August 2017 13:34 (seven years ago) link
I think mark s was right to delete that post btw.
― Daniel_Rf, Friday, 18 August 2017 14:42 (seven years ago) link
lol
― mark s, Friday, 18 August 2017 14:44 (seven years ago) link
― Frederik B, Friday, August 18, 2017 2:05 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I'm not clear what this means in practice, would the ACLU refuse to offer practical support in getting permission for events going ahead if attendees are likely to be armed? or would they support events taking place, but rhetorically condemn them if attendees are armed, in which case is that a significant change from their current practice?
― soref, Friday, 18 August 2017 17:23 (seven years ago) link
There's an interesting paragraph in this vox-explainer on the ACLU: https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville
But the ACLU has built its reputation, for decades, on the idea that there is no ideology so dangerous it doesn’t deserve vigorous First Amendment protections. “Going back to the organization’s founding in 1920,” says Strossen, “it was defending freedom of speech for anti-civil-libertarians, everybody from fascists to communists.” (This is something of a whitewash of the ACLU’s institutional history — like a lot of other establishment liberal organizations in the 1950s, it was too afraid of McCarthyism to defend Communists and even required members to abjure Communism in an oath — but it’s a decent account of its impact on the current state of free-speech law.)
Worth remembering when people say we need to defend principle even when they're benefiting nazis, so that they'll defend us when the tables are turned. When the table was turned, they were too cowardly to defend leftists.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:07 (seven years ago) link
all those ppl are dead i think
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:11 (seven years ago) link
who else wants to water down the USA's free speech to Europe's level, besides Frederik and JiC?
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:13 (seven years ago) link
Free speech but with irl sban system
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:18 (seven years ago) link
that they'll defend us when the tables are turned. When the table was turned, they were too cowardly to defend leftists.
who is "they" -- the ACLU?
― the Rain Man of nationalism. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:25 (seven years ago) link
'establishment liberal organizations'
― Frederik B, Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:28 (seven years ago) link
Hey there ACLU
― jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:28 (seven years ago) link
So Fred, you believe that the ACLU et al. can only be trusted to defend right-wing causes, because they were complicit during the Second Red Scare, so to hell with everything?
― As an ilxor, I am uncompromising (El Tomboto), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:30 (seven years ago) link
no
― Frederik B, Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:35 (seven years ago) link
To address the thread's OP: as a principle, I am against prior restraint of political speech, unless there is a clear prior demonstration of an intent to commit or incite civil violence.
In the case of groups like the KKK or neo-Nazis, they have sufficiently demonstrated such intent through almost all their prior actions and statements. When the very core of your political views embraces violence against minorities, subjection of minorities, exclusion of minorities and social rejection of minorities, then there's no reason to believe such speech is protected by the First Amendment. These groups should never be granted permits to hold rallies in support of these violent and abusive political positions.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:37 (seven years ago) link
Fight for the ACLU to stay on your side, specifically to adjust to a post DC vs Heller reality. Don't sit back and think 'principles' without power will save anyone.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 20 August 2017 17:39 (seven years ago) link
have you read the original ACLU statement? it brought up some very interesting points. their main point was that in supporting the freedom to march, it supports the bad and the good, that it is as much a nod of support towards the good guys as the bad guys, that it also protects the left's ability to counter protest by making these statements. another really good point they made was that a potential legal solution of giving the gov't the ability to declare what protests are violent in nature could really backfire when used in the wrong hands. look at who is currently in charge, do you really want to give Trump that power? anti-hate laws could be (and would be) abused to completely silence opposition.
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 20 August 2017 20:42 (seven years ago) link