Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I guarantee you that the US has tolerated far more openly violent movements than antifa.

I SWEAR there was this old law and I cannot remember EXACTLY what it said.

Something about how being outraged at black people is a legal defense in murder trials. Or that if a Black man was sleeping with your wife, it was manslaughter, not second degree... Some really bogus law like that.

[smjjames]

@wierd: That's assuming that they even know that a non-offensive use of the swastica actually exists.

Really kids, just because you find something offensive, and some morons use language or imagery in an offensive way, does not mean the language or imagery themselves are always 100% in-line with such morons.  Let them use the language, and the imagery. Just ignore what they have to say, because what they have to say lacks objective substance. Counter them with reason, not irrational hatred or violence. THAT is the way of enlightenment.

I find that statement self contradictory because you both say tolerate and don't tolerate at the same time. You say 'ignore it' as in just tolerate it, don't fight back. Then the next sentence you say 'don't ignore it' as in don't tolerate it, fight back with words and reason rather than violence.

[smjjames]

Also, gonna repost what Toady One said as I'm not sure we're actually following what he said:

I know it's a topic these days, but I'd appreciate it if we move the discussion of acceptable violence away from specific individuals etc.  People are endangering their accounts and this topic with some of the rhetoric.

I think we may need to stop referring to violence against groups? Nobodys saying about acceptable violence obviously, I'm just trying to keep things safe.

[EnigmaticHat]

And to be clear, I'm not just legal rules laywering.  The edition of Fareinheight 451 I read had an afterword by Ray Bardbury.  And do you know what he said?  He said "you can say whatever you want, but I can say whatever I want in response".  And this was specifically in the context of offensive speech.  I think it was specifically anti-immigration sentiment against the Irish or something, he had a specific example but I can't find the book and I can't find the afterword online.

And the founding fathers most certainly would not be on the anti-PC crowd's side.  The founding fathers were incendiary as balls in their speech.  I mean they literally published a manifesto that started a war.  These are the same guys that responded to criticism by handing more-or-less handing the other guy a gun and saying "duel me bro".  Do you seriously think that the people behind the Boston Tea Party would be mad at antifa on principle?

[wierd]

More, it is implied that the following process has happened, SMJJames:

1) Somebody says something really dumb or offensive.
2) I hear/read what they said.
3) I attempt to comprehend their rationale for saying it. (Very important.)
4) I determine that their rhetoric is without merit.
5) I ignore them, and do not engage in active reprisal. (It is entirely possible that my evaluation is incorrect!!)

What I DO NOT do, is this:

1) Somebody says something really dumb or offensive.
2) I get really pissed, and get a hate boner.
3) I do everything I can possibly muster to shut that offensive bastard down.

The former is the action of an enlightened mind. The latter is not. 

[Gizogin]

Freedom of speech is more than the inability of the government to censor what we say or print. It's the ability of every person to profess an opinion without fear of coming to harm because of it.

It doesn't mean that anyone else is obligated to listen to me or to give me a platform (Kathy Griffin is a recent example). It explicitly does not cover advocating or inciting violence (and there's a difference between saying "Nazis deserve to be punched" and saying "go out right now and punch a Nazi"), nor does freedom of speech cover libel or slander.

There's no specific crime of "inhibiting free speech" because any action that would violate this right is already a crime, usually assault or destruction of property. We cannot exempt certain people or groups from these crimes (be it by granting amnesty for those who commit them or by reclassifying the acts so that they are or are not crimes when committed by/against certain people or groups) just because we disagree with their opinions. That's why we can't allow people to punch Nazis "because they're Nazis"; it's a crime regardless of the opinions or affiliations of the parties involved. If that's not the case, then it is a violation of free speech; we're saying that certain opinions render a person ineligible for protections afforded to everyone else.

EDIT: From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
 
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Three things.  First of all, I guarantee you that the UN has nothing against antifa.  Secondly, the UN has issued humans rights criticisms towards the US, but its for things like mass incarceration and voter suppression.  The UN doesn't give a shit who reddit bans or who internet liberals make fun of.  Thirdly, the declaration of human rights isn't legally binding in the US or anywhere on Earth.  Not in the conventional sense that laws are legally binding against private citizens at least.  And finally, AGAIN, just because you get banned off an internet forum or antifa yells at you has done NOTHING to deny you your rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  You get to assemble, freely and peacefully in a location.  Antifa gets to assemble, freely and peacefully, in a nearby location.  YOU are the one calling for other people to be denied their rights, because you're saying that Antifa is breaking the law when they aren't and thus suggesting THEIR right to free and peaceful assembly should be taken away.

Yes, the punch nazis stuff is rude but I guarantee you that the US has tolerated far more openly violent movements than antifa.  And far more threatening signs than "fuck Trump" or "punch nazis".  The legal definition of a threat is vague but consistent.  Among other things, threats count for less the larger the group their targeting.  Hence why when my idiot High School friend said "we should nuke Iraq" that was threatening speech but it wasn't illegal, because the threat is vague and implausible.  Even something like "we should kill the blacks" isn't a legally punishable threat unless its expressed in certain contexts.  That's just how it works and has always worked.  Bear in mind this is not theoretical, there are people who have said things like "we should kill the n*****s" a time in which actual lynchings were occurring and there was a pretty plausible chance that person would put their money where their mouth is and still they were protected by free speech.  Whereas antifa has never killed someone and I dare you to prove me wrong with a source that isn't a badly formatted conspiracy theory website.

And no, the government does not guarantee your voice will be heard and it does nothing, and should do nothing, to prevent louder and more numerous voices from drowning you out.  Provided those voices come from private citizens who aren't breaking the law.  Freedom of speech means that you have a voice, it doesn't not mean you have a soap box, and it does not mean that you have an audience.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your speech has positive effects, or any effects at all.  It certainly doesn't mean you're free of the consequences of your speech.  If you tell someone they're subhuman, and they hate you, that's their thoughts and their right.  If you tell someone they're subhuman and they hate you and as a result of that hate they punch you, only the punch was the crime.  The hate, and any legal expressions of it, were totally legal.

I expressly condemned the punching of a person whose opinions I disagree with a couple of pages ago. I'm not sure where you're getting all this stuff about me suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to stage a protest, when that's pretty explicitly what I'm supporting. I've never made any mention of antifa.

The UN declaration may not be legally binding, but the US signed it, meaning that we agree with it, at least in principle. I quoted it because I think it's a good encapsulation of the views I agree with.

Non-violent protests and counter-protests are allowed, and they should be allowed, and I'd never argue the opposite. What I object to, and this is the only thing I have objected to in relation to this topic, is any attempt to justify violence or other crimes because of what one party or the other thinks or says.

[smjjames]

More, it is implied that the following process has happened, SMJJames:

1) Somebody says something really dumb or offensive.
2) I hear/read what they said.
3) I attempt to comprehend their rationale for saying it. (Very important.)
4) I determine that their rhetoric is without merit.
5) I ignore them, and do not engage in active reprisal. (It is entirely possible that my evaluation is incorrect!!)

What I DO NOT do, is this:

1) Somebody says something really dumb or offensive.
2) I get really pissed, and get a hate boner.
3) I do everything I can possibly muster to shut that offensive bastard down.

The former is the action of an enlightened mind. The latter is not. 

What if their rationale is racism/islamophobia? I get what you're saying about enlightened mind, but it doesn't mean that you need to tolerate it.

You can still do reprisal by speaking out against it, that is also being enlightened because you're not tolerating it. Where it becomes un-enlightened is where it gets to violence.

Obviously you'd want to be aware of the situation, if they are waving around a gun, then yeah it'd be safer to shut up.

[wierd]

The very wording of your question suggests that you think there are no nuggets of truth in racist slurs, or that there is no reason to have fear of another culture that exhibits systemic violence.

Should one think that race X is always better than race Y?  Certainly not.  But the world does not operate in a vacuum, and evolution gave people of race X the physiological characteristics they have, because those characteristics were favorable within a certain environment. Within that environment, race X objectively performs better than race Y.  When transplanted to the environment that gave rise to race Y?  Other way around. 

The moronic thing is asserting that X is always better than Y. (or vise versa) Not that asserting that there might be adaptations that make X better suited than Y for a certain environment, which is objectively true-- evolution does exactly that, which is how race X came to exist in the first place.

Similar story with islamophobia.  Militantly fundamentalist islam is very intolerant of any other religion or culture. It is not irrational to desire that it not spread outside of its existing sphere of influence. However, non-militant, non-fundamentalist islam does not seem to suffer that set of undesirable features, and so fear of it is irrational.  Painting with a broad brush, as you just did, negates the nuance of the reality-- which is essential if you are going to properly evaluate what somebody is saying. They can be completely off base on 99% of what they are saying, and get 1% right in a truly epiphanic way--- if you blanket discard the rhetoric, and DO NO do step 3) of my enlightened mind process, you will reach a faulted conclusion at 4.

[EnigmaticHat]

-snip-

Well, given that I didn't respond to a post made by you, I'm not sure why you think I would have read your wall of text. Unless MrRoboto is your alt?

The xkcd-level of "banning people from websites is not a violation of free speech" is not what is at issue here. Public protests aren't anybody's property, so allowing one group of people to "shut down" another, even if that is the extremes of antifa and neo-nazis, is indeed a functional violation of free speech. If the group activity of corporations shouldn't be allowed to reach out and suppress people orthogonality, than surely non-corporate group action meets the same bar. And have no doubt that the members of the state are involved, on some level, with these activities with the intent of enforcing suppression.

But even if they were not, the state absolutely has a legitimate role in preventing people from being intimidated or assaulted for filming protestors, not just because those things are crimes on their own but because they violate the free speech of the victim.

Free speech is not just a plain law but a foundational value of the United States. The state is obligated to ensure our liberties exist in fact, not just in word. Much of the struggles in this nation are based in people insisting that rights on paper are all we ought to have. Black people had the same rights as whites on paper since the end of the Civil War, but yet we clearly see that it was not respected in fact.

As long as a right leaves open orthogonal avenues of attack, it doesn't exist. It is child's play for both the state or any other group to avoid such a simple restriction.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

you realize these guys have shown up to events across the country, right? from auburn and nawlins to portland, from new york and boston to anaheim?

sure, they're not beating the shit out of people yet, but it's a matter of time. the cats out of the bag now, thanks to the communist ninjas. 2018 and 2020 are going to be fun, get the popcorn.

Oh no! Before long, it won't be safe to march in the streets calling for the extermination of non-whites anywhere! The horror! Whatever will we do in such a terrible dystopian future? I mean, aside from living nice lives without neo-nazis in power.

That's actually a really terrible viewpoint to have. If we want to be able to argue for our own viewpoints, we have to extend that right to people whose opinions we disagree with. That's why the ACLU will defend the rights of even scum like the WBC (also actual neo-Nazis; they fought against a 1977 ruling that would have banned neo-Nazis from publicly demonstrating, while maintaining their opposition to what said neo-Nazis were actually saying).

Free speech (and freedom of assembly, freedom of press, freedom of association) has to extend to everyone as long as no-one else's right are being infringed upon. This is especially true of unpopular, even reprehensible, opinions, because popular opinions don't need defending.

When Richard Spencer was punched for being a white supremacist, I may have felt a certain visceral pleasure in it, but that doesn't mean I can't condemn the act of punching him. Not just because it fed perfectly into his rhetoric about how he was being persecuted for, in his mind, "speaking the truth"; not just because now I'm in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the rights of a really terrible person; but because we should all be wary of a culture that celebrates acts of violence when they're committed against certain, "acceptable" people.

You're right that free speech and freedom of assembly need to be respected universally, you're wrong about how those rights work.  First of all, antifa has no obligation to respect either of those rights since they apply only to the government.  If someone has a swastika tattoo and I punch them because of it, I didn't "violate their free speech" because I can't do that because I'm not the government.  I'm still going to jail, but for assault.

Protests are protected by freedom of assembly and speech, but so are counter protests.  Antifa has a right to their voice just like the bigots.  Trump supporters can tell the "Mexicans" to go home but the the "Mexicans" can insult Trump supporters back and make fun of them till the sun goes down and that's their right.

In addition, neither of those rights has ever been universal.  And bear in mind, both freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are FAR more protected now than they were throughout most of American history.  Freedom of assembly only applies if you have the approval of local government (which is obligated to give you that approval, of course, but they can restrict it within certain bounds).  Freedom of speech has always had a ton of footnotes.  Doesn't cover hate speech, threats, certain forms of deception, ect.  In addition tho free speech only restricts, it never obligates action on the part of private citizens.  Or to put it differently, no one owes you a venue, no one owes you to listen, no one legally owes you politeness.  If the government, for example, told Reddit they weren't allowed to ban r/ fatpeoplehate, that would be violating the rights... of Reddit's owners to do what they want with their own privately owned forum.

You want your rights to help you, know what they are.  Shutting down counter protest isn't protecting people's rights its eroding them, and both the founding fathers and the constitution have my back on this one.

My wall of text was a few posts behind you and it was basically saying the same thing Roboto did but in more detail.  It was kinda a major part of the conversation but it was tucked away at the end of a page.

Anyway, the reason free speech MUST only apply to the government is this.  Antifa has a right to freedom of assembly in public places.  With all the shit that was said and done at Trump's rallies I (and the vast majority of other liberals) never said he shouldn't have a venue right?  Even tho he's hateful and violent.  Yet you are saying, because Antifa is hateful and supposedly violent, that they should lose their right to assembly.  The primary concerns for protest licenses are basically logistical, AKA does this protest prevent the use of tax payer funded public roads.  Remember, people are still allowed to protest in front of Planned Parenthood, legally, despite those protests being obviously about inconveniencing and intimidating people that want to use that service.  And that is our laws as intended.  Yet you are saying, that a space that is appropriate for Trump supporters to protest in, should NOT be available to his opponents.  Even tho it was already blocked off and everything.  That we, nay, the government has a moral obligation to pick and choose who is allowed to show up to a protest.

Here's the thing.  Trump supporters are facing off against Antifa supporters.  The Trump supporters aren't trying to take away anyone's right to free speech or freedom of assembly.  The Antifa crowd, aren't trying to take away anyone's rights either.  Their beef is with the message, not the means by which that message is spread.  The only person who's trying to take away someone's rights is you.  I mean listen to yourself, you're calling for the US government under Trump to suppress an anti-Trump movement because of a "spirit of the law" that vastly contradicts the letter of the law as repeatedly interpreted by generations of supreme courts... and you think you're defending the right to assembly?  You're trying to take it away from someone you don't like.

[smjjames]

The very wording of your question suggests that you think there are no nuggets of truth in racist slurs, or that there is no reason to have fear of another culture that exhibits systemic violence.

For fear of another culture that exhibits systemic violence, if you're talking about groups like the Vikings when they raid or the Mongols, that's one thing, but if it's a group (are we calling African Americans a culture now?) that is systemically oppressed and treated badly, that's another.

For the 'racist slurs maybe or maybe not having nuggets of truth in it', I was going to respond to that, but I've decided not to because it'll lead us down a road that Toady One would rather us not go. Or at least would be perilous.

[wierd]

Agreed that it leads down a path that is perilous-- the fact that we engage in self-censorship is indicative of how bad the situation against honest intellectual discourse has become, where even attempting to perform due-diligence can result in reprisal and punitive action.

I believe that brings us full circle.

I advocate not engaging in reprisal, because I acknowledge that I am capable of error.
The person that advocates reprisal, does not make that acknowledgement.

At most, I would suggest engaging the source in the offensive rhetoric with a calm, cool demeanor, and asking them to better explain their use of language or imagery.

In the case of the person with the swastika tattoo, this opens the door for them to tell you all about Jainism-- for instance. Something you would not have been open to, had you responded with reprisal.

Likewise, with the dangers of being permabanned on websites-- Instead of jumping straight to the permaban, discuss the matter with the person in private channels, determine their intent, remind them of the forum rules and why they exist.  Should there be an actual problem, proceed with disciplinary measures.

Toady acts in a more or less enlightened fashion. He wants to understand the rationale and motivation behind why people do things, and would prefer not having to use the ban-hammer.  He does what he has to, though.

All too often though, people are too quick to reach for weapons, instead of reason.

[Gizogin]

My wall of text was a few posts behind you and it was basically saying the same thing Roboto did but in more detail.  It was kinda a major part of the conversation but it was tucked away at the end of a page.

Anyway, the reason free speech MUST only apply to the government is this.  Antifa has a right to freedom of assembly in public places.  With all the shit that was said and done at Trump's rallies I (and the vast majority of other liberals) never said he shouldn't have a venue right?  Even tho he's hateful and violent.  Yet you are saying, because Antifa is hateful and supposedly violent, that they should lose their right to assembly.  The primary concerns for protest licenses are basically logistical, AKA does this protest prevent the use of tax payer funded public roads.  Remember, people are still allowed to protest in front of Planned Parenthood, legally, despite those protests being obviously about inconveniencing and intimidating people that want to use that service.  And that is our laws as intended.  Yet you are saying, that a space that is appropriate for Trump supporters to protest in, should NOT be available to his opponents.  Even tho it was already blocked off and everything.  That we, nay, the government has a moral obligation to pick and choose who is allowed to show up to a protest.

Here's the thing.  Trump supporters are facing off against Antifa supporters.  The Trump supporters aren't trying to take away anyone's right to free speech or freedom of assembly.  The Antifa crowd, aren't trying to take away anyone's rights either.  Their beef is with the message, not the means by which that message is spread.  The only person who's trying to take away someone's rights is you.  I mean listen to yourself, you're calling for the US government under Trump to suppress an anti-Trump movement because of a "spirit of the law" that vastly contradicts the letter of the law as repeatedly interpreted by generations of supreme courts... and you think you're defending the right to assembly?  You're trying to take it away from someone you don't like.

Except that none of what you're saying I've said is what I've actually said. I agree with you. Whether it be Trump supporters or antifa or whoever, everyone has the right to freedom of assembly/speech/association/whatever. I don't care who it is or what their message is, as long as they're not breaking any laws or getting violent.

I never said anything about any specific protest or counter-protest; the only specific incidents I have mentioned in this entire conversation have related to the ACLU, Kathy Griffin, and one disagreeable chap who does not need to be brought up again. What it sounds like to me is that you think I am objecting to a specific protest, apparently because one of the groups involved has a history (real or imagined) of radical behavior and/or violence. This is not the case; I'm not even sure which protest or rally or whatever I'm supposedly so against in the first place. To object to a protest before it happens because of one of the groups involved is literally the opposite of my position.

Are you sure you're not confusing me for someone else? I think this conversation may have escaped me somewhere, because we appear to be arguing, even though I think we're fundamentally in agreement over what free speech/assembly/etc. is.

[EnigmaticHat]

Look I know I'm getting heated on this but I have actually studied and researched this pretty extensively.  Both the spirit of the law and the letter of the law for free speech and freedom of assembly are TIGHTLY defined in the US.  There is a great deal of literature from founding fathers as to what both of those concepts mean and generations of lawyers and judges, including the supreme court, have used those precedents to define with ever-increasing exactness what both of those rights mean.

A large number of people in that thread are greatly contradicting that consensus.  I know this is rude and generally frowned upon but I feel like people are going to get mad at further walls of texts so... maybe do some research on this topic before you try to argue it?  Like literally any generic source you find will contradict you.  Here's an applicable and authoritative, as well as accurate, source.  Note from that source: counter protestors are always allowed, as long as they don't physically disrupt another protest.  But even if they do, they just get arrested; they were still allowed to be there prior to that point.  Only at the Berkley protest did Antifa members actually break the law and they got arrested like they should have been.  All the police can do is separate the crowds.  A protest and its counter protest being both present gives the police NO extra powers or obligations beyond separating the crowd, they cannot do anything to either protest that they wouldn't be allowed to do normally.  That includes telling them to change their dress, act differently (there are a few exceptions to this but Antifa isn't covered), or go home.

My earlier criticism in this thread of militias and private armies showing up to protests is because those are militias and private armies.  Its intimidating and anti-democratic for reasons that don't require explanation.

Edit: Gizogin I was responding to MSH, you shaved his quote off the top of my post when you quoted it

Double edit: oh, and for people that think that my "free speech only applies to the government" standard is incorrect or morally indefensible, literally read the second sentence of the wikipedia article on this topic.  This is what the founding fathers wanted, what US judges have consistently decided, and our modern implementation of free speech is genuinely the best way to support a democracy.

[smjjames]

Agreed that it leads down a path that is perilous-- the fact that we engage in self-censorship is indicative of how bad the situation against honest intellectual discourse has become, where even attempting to perform due-diligence can result in reprisal and punitive action.

I'd just rather that the thread not go down in flames. If this was on a forum where such discussion carefully monitored (would require Toady One to be online 24/7) and the topic was specifically on the freedom of speech and related tangents, then yeah I'd go there. I wasn't going to respond in anger, but I was going to respond with a bit of a challenge, but then decided that could lead down the wrong road.

But yes, you're right that honest intellectual discourse is tough with especially touchy subjects like what we just passed over.

All too often though, people are too quick to reach for weapons, instead of reason.

True enough, unfortunately.

I advocate not engaging in reprisal, because I acknowledge that I am capable of error.
The person that advocates reprisal, does not make that acknowledgement.

At most, I would suggest engaging the source in the offensive rhetoric with a calm, cool demeanor, and asking them to better explain their use of language or imagery.

I wonder how much more effective against jihadist types that would be rather than trying to bomb them into oblivion. It's not a disagreement of what you said, I get what you're saying, just sort of idly wondering how effective it would be.

[wierd]

As long as your definitions of "militias and private armies" are sufficiently broad to include all forms of vigilantism, I am in complete agreement, EH.