[Discussion] Free speech. I think its ok to shut down fascists.

Can't they do the exact same thing liberals is supposed to do in your argument?

Which is precisely what they've been trying to do, and why the Supreme Court is so messed up. And, note, they are starting to succeed, and now you aren't being represented while five old guys in robes decide what rules you will be bound by.

Malor wrote:

But they have been willing. Look at the civil rights movement in the 60s for the best example. That change was debated and passed through Congress, which meant that, critically, everyone in the country was represented in the decisions that were reached. The conservatives lost that fight, and they knew they lost that fight in a straight vote, but they also knew that they were listened to, and that their opinions were part of the overall conversation.

From Gingrich's talk of a wave of fraudulent voting by illegal immigrants in '93 to looking to take over the Supreme Court in '71 under Nixon to "Impeach Earl Warren" in the 50s, do you realize someone has filled your head with alt-history here? Even that VRA decision you're talking about--that decision has roots in the 80s not to mention the rest of the history of the opposition to that law.

do you realize someone has filled your head with alt-history here?

Not one of those links directly contradicts anything I'm saying, as far as I can see. If anything, the talk of Nixon wanting to stack the court reinforces how important it's become to advancing liberal ideas. He wouldn't have wanted to do that, if it weren't being used to enact social change that can't pass Congress.

What that argument really boils down to is "we can't convince them, so we'll force them." And they're willing to do the same thing.

Malor wrote:
do you realize someone has filled your head with alt-history here?

Not one of those links directly contradicts anything I'm saying, as far as I can see. If anything, the talk of Nixon wanting to stack the court reinforces how important it's become to advancing liberal ideas. He wouldn't have wanted to do that, if it weren't being used to enact social change that can't pass Congress.

Let's just start with this:

Malor wrote:

You didn't lose now, you lost ten or fifteen years ago, when you stopped using Congress to make social change happen.

Nixon was ten to fifteen years ago?

Congress didn't stop working for things like that until probably the Bush administration.

It kinda does all go back to Roe v. Wade, but the courts have become the *only* front where liberal issues have been advancing.

Malor wrote:

Congress didn't stop working for things like that until probably the Bush administration.

How did Nixon know to stack the court in anticipation of something that would not happen for another twenty-plus years?

Robear wrote:

Your prescription has no way of distinguishing between sincerely held beliefs, even if one is true (fascists seek to oppress dissenters) and the other is bugfcuk crazy (American liberals are pursuing a fascist agenda). Unless you sort that out, the problem you will have is that you are favoring one *political party* (or agenda, I guess) over another, and that will just push them more towards violence to defend their views.

Lending legitimacy and normalcy to sincerely held bugfcuk crazy beliefs that connect to a political platform is a very very bad idea. It leads to interviewers hearing from a Dr explaining how there is no link between vaccinations and autism then allowing someone else to explain that there is a link in order to get a "fair and balanced" view. And people get ill and die. It leads to people explaining how in Europe socialised health care means death panels making people far more likely to vote for the person who promises to make sure that never happens here. And health care reform gets gutted. And people get ill and die. It leads to people in authority stating that certain groups of people are sinners, are unclean, are somehow scary and wrong. And thugs are far more likely to feel justified when they want to beat up someone from this group. And people get injured and die.

Lending any weight to bugfcuk crazy ideas where politics and policy makers are involved is absolutly inexcusable.

Malor wrote:
Can't they do the exact same thing liberals is supposed to do in your argument?

Which is precisely what they've been trying to do, and why the Supreme Court is so messed up. And, note, they are starting to succeed, and now you aren't being represented while five old guys in robes decide what rules you will be bound by.

No, I mean, you say that both liberals and conservatives are supposed to change the laws and the constitution through Congress, rather than through Supreme Court.

Why is the conservative values the default state of things, while a liberal interpretation of the constitution is unfairly enacting social change?
Why is it okay to rule that abortion is illegal, but not okay to rule that it is legal? In both cases it seems like the judges are taking a stance.

Strangederby wrote:

Lending legitimacy and normalcy to sincerely held bugfcuk crazy beliefs that connect to a political platform is a very very bad idea.

And yet all those things you cited were strenuously opposed in the mainstream - press, rallies, politicians, experts, all that stuff existed. There's always a drumbeat of crazy under the surface, but the times when it starts to take over on an issue are thankfully less common. What's important is not just to speak against, and ridicule, and vote against, but also to understand where this stuff is coming from and why it is resonating. If you think about it, you can outlaw whatever you want, but that won't stop it. And for many people, that makes it more attractive.

I *want* White Supremacists to march in my town. They and their dozen or two supporters will be absolutely swamped in scary, jeering, shouting crowds waving signs and threatening destruction if they so much as step out of the parade. I want them to *understand* how strongly they are rejected. But... They *won't* march here, even though they are protected, because they *do* get this. They are afraid.

Given this balance, we don't really need to tilt the scales beyond criminalizing hate speech that supplements an actual attack. Instead, we need to look at the channels that are pushing this information, and learn to use them as well as the haters do. We need to understand the sources of this behavior and work to counter it through whatever support and outreach is needed.

Because in most of the US, if the KKK komes kalling, they'll get KKKilled (figuratively) if they step out of line, no extra laws needed.

Just look at the language being used in this thread about the conservative contingent; they are being Othered as thoroughly as any group I've seen. Suddenly, they're subhuman racists, rather than being fellow citizens who think they're doing the right thing. It's okay to force them to comply with our views because they're uneducated boors who don't belong in Our Just Society.
They have a book that they believe tells them that gay marriage is evil, and they're having gay marriage imposed on them by five old people in robes. They believe that America is being run by godless liberals, and that the divine punishment for this malfeasance is inevitable. It doesn't matter whether or not this is true, what matters is that they really believe it. And they are citizens too. No matter how wrong or deluded they are, they're part of us. They're still Americans.

I believe that the right for freedom and equality for all humans trumps everything else. So in the end nobody should have the ability to restrict that. No god.. no church..no government. IF we aren't all equal then we haven't done enough. I'm ok with Conservatives believing anything they want.. I'm not ok if there are laws enforcing what racists and bigoted views they have on what they feel people should be doing.

It's quite simple.. you dont believe in gay marriage? That's fine don't marry someone of the same sex.. but your belief has no power outside your own body.

That's the fundamental difference in my opinion.. one side just wants equality and freedom.. the other side wants to restrict that.

Robear wrote:
Strangederby wrote:

Lending legitimacy and normalcy to sincerely held bugfcuk crazy beliefs that connect to a political platform is a very very bad idea.

And yet all those things you cited were strenuously opposed in the mainstream - press, rallies, politicians, experts, all that stuff existed. There's always a drumbeat of crazy under the surface, but the times when it starts to take over on an issue are thankfully less common. What's important is not just to speak against, and ridicule, and vote against, but also to understand where this stuff is coming from and why it is resonating. If you think about it, you can outlaw whatever you want, but that won't stop it. And for many people, that makes it more attractive.

I *want* White Supremacists to march in my town. They and their dozen or two supporters will be absolutely swamped in scary, jeering, shouting crowds waving signs and threatening destruction if they so much as step out of the parade. I want them to *understand* how strongly they are rejected. But... They *won't* march here, even though they are protected, because they *do* get this. They are afraid.

Given this balance, we don't really need to tilt the scales beyond criminalizing hate speech that supplements an actual attack. Instead, we need to look at the channels that are pushing this information, and learn to use them as well as the haters do. We need to understand the sources of this behavior and work to counter it through whatever support and outreach is needed.

Because in most of the US, if the KKK komes kalling, they'll get KKKilled (figuratively) if they step out of line, no extra laws needed.

Just as a real life example of this, the alt right idiots in Spartan armor were completely outnumbered and outshouted yesterday when they showed up in Portland. It seems to me the police allowing both groups to be there but stopping violence was the best solution- given how many weapons they confiscated.

EDIT - I know some of you like Roughneck Geek are in Seattle. If these guys show up locally I'd be happy to come join you on a counterprotest. Willing to put my money where my mouth is and help out the cause, even though I won't support violence outside of actual self defense.

Thegameguru is right. To add to the point with one example Malor said

.They have a book that they believe tells them that gay marriage is evil, and they're having gay marriage imposed on them by five old people in robes

The wording here is vital in understanding this issue. They are not and never have had gay marriage imposed on them. No one is forcing anyone into a gay marriage. Liberals generally want to remove barriers from people who want a same sex marriage. Now I apreciate that this sounds like I'm splitting hairs and trying to score a cheap point using semantics but please keep reading. The difference here is vital. The change in marriage laws don't effect people who don't want a same sex marriage in any way. It doesn't effect anyone's existing hetrosexual marriage in any way. Malor gave this as an example where those on the right have had change forced upon them and freedoms taken away.

Now I ask again because I've not had an answer yet.

What freedoms? And I mean actual solid real examples of freedoms taken away.

If I'm understanding Malor correctly they are saying that the freedoms in question are based on false beliefs and that the fact they are false and crazy doesn't matter. They still need to be taken into consideration and allowed to become part of the political landscape. (Genuine question Malor please correct me if I'm wrong).

I say this is incredibly dangerious for all of us not just liberals.

Allowing bugfcuk beliefs an equal share in politics leads to bugfcuk policy and bugfcuk laws.

No thank you.

Roughneck, not saying they are "hiding" online. It's the opposite. That's where they feel safe, and we need to figure out how to deal with that as effectively as in real life. (As an example, in MD, no one would walk into a restaurant filled with strangers and start dissing minorities out loud. But they'll do it on FaceBook and other sites, either because they feel they are speaking to like-minded friends, or conversely they believe they are defending "tradition" or some such BS. We need to come up with a counter-strategy for this disconnect, like we have IRL.)

Robear wrote:

I *want* White Supremacists to march in my town. They and their dozen or two supporters will be absolutely swamped in scary, jeering, shouting crowds waving signs and threatening destruction if they so much as step out of the parade. I want them to *understand* how strongly they are rejected. But... They *won't* march here, even though they are protected, because they *do* get this. They are afraid.

This paragraph seems like a super strong support of anti-hate speech laws. The point of anti-hate speech laws isn't to keep the KKK from marching in a super liberal town where they would be immediately counter-protested in much larger numbers. The point is recognizing the towns across the country where that response WOULDN'T happen, and protect the minorities in those locations too.

I am super happy that you are privileged enough to live in a more cosmopolitan, tolerant area, but some people don't.

Malor wrote:
And what we saw was, in the election particularly, and I appreciate what Walt said, the first time that you had the tech revolution really weaponized politically — before it was a way to reach voters, you know, collect fundraising, do things that would help the candidate who was behind the messaging — that changed this time, and it changed for a number of reasons we should talk about. You had Citizens United come to its full fruition. So unaccountable money flowing in against me, against other Democrats, in a way that we hadn’t seen and then attached to this weaponized information war. You had effective suppression of votes. Those of us who can remember the Voting Rights Act, the expansion of the franchise, and then I was in the Senate when we voted 98 to nothing under a Republican president, George W. Bush, to extend the Voting Rights Act.
 
And the Supreme Court said, “Oh, we don’t need it anymore,” throws it out, and Republican governors and legislatures began doing everything they could to suppress the vote.
So, that was before we get to the Russians, or Cambridge Analitica, or anything of the outside. And there were lots of factors at work and yeah, it was aimed at me, but it’s a much deeper, more persistent effort to try to literally turn the clock back on so much of what we’ve achieved as a country.

So five people in robes overturned a near unanimous decision by Congress. This is dangerous.

second edit: link to transcript; it's actually pretty interesting. Of course, the Russian shills are pushing it on Reddit as HIllary being hateful, but I just found it interesting.

It seems uncharacteristic of you, given your previous statements about the importance of strict constitutionalism, that you would portray the Supreme Court protecting State institutions from Federal regulation as a failure of the Supreme Court.

I think we can punish speech when it accompanies criminal acts, as we do now, as a signal of motivation, but I hesitate to criminalize speech itself, because as I showed earlier (and which point has not been addressed), those laws can serve oppressors as well as they can the oppressed. Because once the oppressors put them into play, they will never let up.

Roughneck Geek wrote:

After attending an alt-right rally, a man walked onto a bus, harassed POC, and killed two people that tried to intervene. I don't see how that supports the idea we have an effective strategy for dealing with this hatred in meat space.

One event, out of many similar rallies that saw nothing like this. Unless you're arguing for zero tolerance (which, for any crime, is unrealistic), you would need to make the case that this behavior is dominant, and not the exception. And yet that does not seem to be the case.

Robear wrote:
Roughneck Geek wrote:

After attending an alt-right rally, a man walked onto a bus, harassed POC, and killed two people that tried to intervene. I don't see how that supports the idea we have an effective strategy for dealing with this hatred in meat space.

One event, out of many similar rallies that saw nothing like this. Unless you're arguing for zero tolerance (which, for any crime, is unrealistic), you would need to make the case that this behavior is dominant, and not the exception. And yet that does not seem to be the case.

If your definition of "this behavior" is murder, then no, that's not dominant, but less extreme events happen a lot. In 2008 69% of Muslim women that wear headscarves had experienced harassment fewer that didn't wear headscarves were harassed, but that rate of 29% is still quite high.

In the latter part of 2015 there were 12.6 suspected instances of anti-Muslim hate crime a month.

I've seen reports that such events have upticked since Trump was elected, not only for Muslims but for other at risk groups such as transgender, I suspect that when the 2017 numbers are out we'll see that that's true.

Yonder wrote:
Robear wrote:
Roughneck Geek wrote:

After attending an alt-right rally, a man walked onto a bus, harassed POC, and killed two people that tried to intervene. I don't see how that supports the idea we have an effective strategy for dealing with this hatred in meat space.

One event, out of many similar rallies that saw nothing like this. Unless you're arguing for zero tolerance (which, for any crime, is unrealistic), you would need to make the case that this behavior is dominant, and not the exception. And yet that does not seem to be the case.

If your definition of "this behavior" is murder, then no, that's not dominant, but less extreme events happen a lot. In 2008 69% of Muslim women that wear headscarves had experienced harassment fewer that didn't wear headscarves were harassed, but that rate of 29% is still quite high.

In the latter part of 2015 there were 12.6 suspected instances of anti-Muslim hate crime a month.

I've seen reports that such events have upticked since Trump was elected, not only for Muslims but for other at risk groups such as transgender, I suspect that when if the 2017 numbers are out we'll see that that's true.

FT for our current administration's track record with data

TheGameguru wrote:

I believe that the right for freedom and equality for all humans trumps everything else. So in the end nobody should have the ability to restrict that. No god.. no church..no government.

Okay, but the upshot of that means that about 30% of this country isn't welcome to live here, by your definition. Or at least, they can, but they can't have the society they want to have. What tactics are justified in forcing them to comply with the way you view the world? How much government intrusion is allowed? Where does the line get drawn? You seem to draw the line between speech and actions, which makes sense to me, but many many many people, including a few right here on this board, seem to believe that criminalizing "hate speech" is perfectly acceptable. And then you get the whole 'but his speech made me feel bad so it's hate speech" extension, easily supportable under that worldview as well.

It doesn't matter if someone is right, if someone else doesn't like their tone or their beliefs, then this worldview can be easily used to silence them. And that goes both ways; we could end up with an America where we can't criticize religion because it pisses people off. That's already true in numerous countries, that you literally cannot criticize religion without going to jail.

I agree with the fundamental principle you're expressing pretty strongly, but ideals translated into the real world have side effects. If you're not willing to convince the other side, if you're willing to resort to forcing them to go along with the way you view the world, then the calculus changes a lot. They're a BIG contingent in this country, and always have been. If you're willing to force them, what's stopping them from forcing you? If it comes down a civil war, which I suspect it very well might, then they will win, and you will lose everything you care about, or at least most of it.

Shadout wrote:

Why is the conservative values the default state of things, while a liberal interpretation of the constitution is unfairly enacting social change?

Because that's the original social contract, and it has a defined process for being changed. It's really hard to change it in major ways, which was done deliberately to prevent people like Trump from destroying the country overnight. Being very resistant to major change is a feature, not a bug. If it was easy to change, you would be tremendously unhappier than you are right now.

Why is it okay to rule that abortion is illegal, but not okay to rule that it is legal? In both cases it seems like the judges are taking a stance.

Because changes like that are really supposed to come through Congress. Everyone is supposed to be involved in the decision. As is, a huge fraction of the country wasn't involved or represented in Roe v. Wade. And that single decision is, at its core, tearing the social fabric apart. It has done tremendous damage to the cohesion of broader society, right along with the many other liberal ideas that have been implemented in the same way. I agree with the decisions, almost uniformly, but I really don't like how they were accomplished. Instead of convincing millions of people, they did it by convincing just five, and something's pretty wrong there.

Malor wrote:
Shadout wrote:

Why is the conservative values the default state of things, while a liberal interpretation of the constitution is unfairly enacting social change?

Because that's the original social contract, and it has a defined process for being changed. It's really hard to change it in major ways, which was done deliberately to prevent people like Trump from destroying the country overnight. Being very resistant to major change is a feature, not a bug. If we didn't have that feature, you would be tremendously unhappier than you are right now.

Abortion being illegal was part of the original social contract? How do you determine that?
If the constitution does not make it illegal, isn't it up to Congress to adjust the constitution to make it illegal, if that is what they think the people desire. Add an amendment that says something like "Personal liberty does not count if you happen to be a woman who want to make decisions regarding her own body" - otherwise it seems like making abortion illegal is the major change that should be prevented - and which Supreme Court did, albeit a bit late.
Until Congress does make such changes, aren't the the judges merely upholding the constitution, against states making unconstitutional laws?

Okay, but the upshot of that means that about 30% of this country isn't welcome to live here, by your definition. Or at least, they can, but they can't have the society they want to have. What tactics are justified in forcing them to comply with the way you view the world? How much government intrusion is allowed? Where does the line get drawn? You seem to draw the line between speech and actions, which makes sense to me, but many many many people, including a few right here on this board, seem to believe that criminalizing "hate speech" is perfectly acceptable. And then you get the whole 'but his speech made me feel bad so it's hate speech" extension, easily supportable under that worldview as well.

They can continue to live and breathe in this country just fine.. sure they might have to bear the thought of gay people marrying but in the end that's just peachy fine as it's not removed one ounce of their own personal freedoms. That's the whole point here... their beliefs cannot become law because it restricts another human beings right to equality and freedom. The challenging part is removing the power behind institutional racism.. and that involves stepping on many corporations (and private businesses) and institutions power and severely limiting it until some time in the future when perhaps we can let these people have their toys back.

It's really that simple in the end.

Malor wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

I believe that the right for freedom and equality for all humans trumps everything else. So in the end nobody should have the ability to restrict that. No god.. no church..no government.

Okay, but the upshot of that means that about 30% of this country isn't welcome to live here, by your definition. Or at least, they can, but they can't have the society they want to have.

If "the society they want to have" means "a society where they get to control what other people can do", then you are correct. As has been stated multiple times in this discussion, the difference is that one "side" wants to control what other people do, and one "side" want to control what they themselves can do.

Malor, you've crossed into a weird world where you have literally said the stated goals of the United States founding documents - one of equality and protection from religious persecution - are unfair ideals to uphold, and that liberal re-interpretation of the "original social contract" is the real problem.

You're going where I can't follow, Anakin . You're breaking my heartsocial contract!

edit: eh, facts don't matter. People just want to yell at each other.

Are we still talking about banning speech based solely on its content?

edit: eh, on second thought.

I think Malor's trying to say that the problem isn't the court's decisions one way or the other. It's the fact that the court was FORCED to decide, because congress didn't make clear laws that a rough majority of the people wanted.

What should happen is that if a law is poorly written, the courts make a decision, and if the majority don't like it, congress writes a better law. But this almost never happens in this practice, and people end up feeling cheated.

The problem with bad speech is that it incites people with little to no self control or critical thinking skills to violence and others to conformity. I find the idea that "the cure for bad speech is better speech" to be not practical in the real world. Plenty of studies show that when people are convinced by an argument, it's 70% by the way the person presenting the argument looks, 20% by the way they sound, and 10% by what they actually say. So if the "bad speech" side has better orators and con-men, then no amount of "good speech" will fix it. Most people are intellectually lazy, irrational, and simple. "Bad speech" will either win them over to commit violence, or enough to stand by while others commit the violence for them. We only have to look of dozens of examples of European democracies falling to fascism or communism over the last century to see how well "better ideas" worked against simple, easy, selfish ones.

I also find some of these slippery slope arguments a bit disingenuous as well. Just because a slippery slope exists doesn't mean it is inevitable. We can choose where to draw the line and not move it if it works well. Legalizing gay marriage didn't actually lead to animal marriage, did it?

I feel like reasonable legal limits on "bad speech," particularly speech that incites violence or bigotry, can be made by smart people and not automatically lead to fascism. At least, it will lead to fascism a lot slower than what we are currently trending toward.

How do you prevent it being turned back on liberals, using exactly the same principles, but defining "bad speech" in the way conservatives would see it? No one has provided a mechanism for that.

Mixolyde wrote:

I think Malor's trying to say that the problem isn't the court's decisions one way or the other. It's the fact that the court was FORCED to decide, because congress didn't make clear laws that a rough majority of the people wanted.

What should happen is that if a law is poorly written, the courts make a decision, and if the majority don't like it, congress writes a better law. But this almost never happens in this practice, and people end up feeling cheated.

That may sometimes be the case, but it ignores the circumstances where the Supreme Court (or lower courts) decide that the issue isn't that the law is unclear, the issue is that the law violates the Constitution.