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