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

Robear wrote:

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.

Because it's not inherently different from any other situation. "Sure, your argument is correct and logically sound, but what about OTHER arguments that aren't correct or logically sound? If we listen to your correct argument then don't we have to listen to all the wrong people as well?"

If we identify a set of criteria that identifies "bad" speech (Say harassment, threatening, or inciting violence is "bad") that doesn't imply that we support any arbitrary classification. This is like saying "ok parents, you can't tell your child not to play with scorpions, because if you did that then OTHER parents might tell your child they aren't allowed to play with cats. WHAT NOW PARENTS, SCORPIONS FOR EVERYBODY!!!"

Robear wrote:

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.

I don't think liberals should be inciting violence with their speech either. So as long as the definitions are clear, I don't think this is a serious consequence. Now, if conservatives start changing the law to include liberal speech that doesn't incite violence, we have a problem.

But we already have limits on inciting violence in speech, right?

Robear wrote:

But we already have limits on inciting violence in speech, right?

And it seems like that's one of the limitations that people in this thread are arguing against.

I think there are a few irrefutable things to mention in this thread. I understand that the government, by the very core of our country's ideals, has to let Fascists march peacefully. I also was leaning the idea that does not stop the people from interfering or disrupting the march.
But I have squashed that idea because of this simple irrefutable concept: the Golden Rule. You can place the sizes of the opposing camps however you want (big vs small, small vs big, equal). Those marching need to be able to march unimpeded and not have their ability to say their message hindered. You don't need any more perspective than looking at the oppressive effects on the common good if you simply swap places between the marchers and those protesting the march.
Now that being said, the words were chosen carefully in that last bit. Should the protesters become as loud or louder than the marchers, so long as both abide by the municipalities applicable noise restrictions, that is fair game. The government is under no obligation to make sure that either sides' message is heard, so long as they can speak it freely. The government is under no obligation to allow either side to march wherever and whenever they want, so long as when they march, they are able to complete it without obstruction.

I think the Supreme Court is a fantastic and integral part of our system. It is a perfect check against a majority that abuses its power. The fact that they are not elected is a feature, not a bug.

Selection requires a president and 60 senators (well, until the Republican f*cked that up). The 60 vote requirement had ensured that most of the time, a justice was confirmed via compromise. It forced the party in power to select an honest and trustworthy individual, the exact kind of people you want overseeing legislation. Their lifetime tenures allows them to look at laws outside of politics. They may apply their own, but they can't be pressured and threatened by their own supporters.

Personally, I don't think it matters if judges are activist or originalists. They function in the real world, the current time period. They should consider the impact on society when ruling, and whether that impact goes against their view of what the framers intended. They are a check on a majority party that can pass laws that only help portions of our citizenry.

All of this leads to a court that is slow to change. You might call them conservative. They lean in the direction of the country, but in much less extreme aspects. It takes a long time transform the court. That keeps it from ever being extremely liberal or conservative.

Even though I have disagreed with rulings of the SC, it's pretty clear that overall, the SC has been a fair arbiter of law in this country. This notion that the the SC is marginalizing conservatives is utter bullsh*t, and more than they are marginalizing liberals with decisions like Citizens United.

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone thinks that the Supreme Court has had a negative effect on our society. Being forced to craft laws to pass Supreme Court muster makes for better laws. And their effect is not even as great as it has been described in this thread. They don't write laws. They don't get to pick which laws to strike down. For it to get to the SC means that a law has been challenged for many years in other courts.

Of course, the recent Republican action, to allow confirmation with 51 votes, after refusing to hold a hearing for Obama's appointee, changes all of that to some degree. But I guess pointing that out marginalizes conservatives.

And really, this talk of conservatives being marginalized is as dumb as the progressives complaining the liberal has been turned into a bad word. This is all about the pendulum. No one likes it when it swings the other way. But it's also not something that should be stopped.

We are just at a real weird time in the country, and it will pass. We are on the verge of becoming more progressive, like Europe. But conservatives are fighting it, as should be expected. We all thought that the Republican Party died, killed off by freedom hating Tea Partiers. Well, they got a last gasp and suddenly we have a President that is an abomination, and legislatures that are afraid to go home and hold town hall meetings.

Hopefully progressives are sufficiently woke. Their is a lot of work to do, taking back many states, as well as the Senate and House. You now see, out of the chaos of Trump, more support for Universal Healthcare, discussion of universal income, support for green energy, and many other causes.

The trick is, we have to stop talking to conservatives. No more arguing. No more potshots. Every progressive running for office has to talk about what they are for. Not how bad the people that are fighting them are. It's what doomed HRC. And it will doom a progressive surge.

Somebody please pass that on to Elizabeth Warren. I love her to death. But the war on Trump is over. We need her to be a force for positive change, not dredging up old battles with Trump and the alt-right.

I've read "If you don't advocate for your civil rights the way I want you to (e: Using a method that's been so stacked against you to be impossible) and assume conservatives want you to, they'll kill you and it's your fault" at least three times in this thread and that's enough for more than one lifetime.

Freyja wrote:

I've read "If you don't advocate for your civil rights the way I want you to (e: Using a method that's been so stacked against you to be impossible) and assume conservatives want you to, they'll kill you and it's your fault" at least three times in this thread and that's enough for more than one lifetime.

Sounds a little like terrorism to me.

Robear wrote:

But we already have limits on inciting violence in speech, right?

Sure, we have lots of limits on speech already. The point of this discussion is whether they need to change, and how much. There are quite a few options, with some pros and cons to all of them.

  • Don't change the existing limits. They are fine.
  • Don't change the existing limits, but enforce them more consistently. Get the FBI to investigate local LE entities if they are not consistently enforcing speech limitations.
  • Increase the penalties for current limitations. In theory to increase the deterrence factor, has side effects of rallying the "oppressed" and leaning credence to their cause.
  • Expand current limitations to broaden definitions of "hate speech" or "dangerous speech" (yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater). Would require further detail on how to expand current limitations in a way that curtails violence, but would not be used to suppress "good speech".

In addition to any of the above, get non-fascists off their duffs to create more "good speech" and provide helpful tools. Things like 5calls.org and whatthef*ckjusthappenedtoday.com, etc.

I think before we continue to talk past each other, especially Malor, we should be a little bit more clear about what changes we are proposing, or what problems need fixing. Yes, hate-based violence is almost certainly increasing. But that violence is already against the law. So do continue to let the justice system take care of these issues as is, or make changes. Do we understand and accept the unintended consequences of those changes?

It may be valuable to look into how OTHER democracies that have come after the US deals with these issues. (Like Sweden or Denmark)

I dont know if you can really say we are dealing with it. Nor effectively. Regardless, here is an attempt at explaining the situation here.
In Denmark we have a "discrimination law" which members of our nationalist party has run into again and again.
It would be somewhat hard for the political majority to directly abuse the law. But the judiciary certainly could, depending on how harshly they interpret it.
Besides, you can probably argue, that the law could be seen as legal precedence for enacting much harsher limits on free speech, if the politicians wanted it.

(my awful translation below, since I couldn't find a freely available translation anywhere)
Anyone who publicly or with widespread publication in mind spreads statements, by which a person or group is threatened or demeaned because of their race, color, ethnicity or nationality, religious faith or sexual orientation is punished by fine or imprisonment for up to two years.
When determining the sentence, it shall be regarded as a particularly aggravating circumstance if the statement is part of propaganda.

The most important aspect is probably the "publication" part. The law only comes into effect if you said it a place where it is spread broadly (as in the media, published books etc). Facebook posts seems to be a gray area, since it is not technically open for everyone . There has been one case I could find, where a guy spewing hatred toward muslims on facebook was not found guilty, since the judges concluded it was not meant for broad publication. So the law does nothing to stop alt-right people hanging out on a private forum for example.

For the most part, people who are found guilty, receives fairly low fines, less than $1000. So especially when it is political parties who spread the hate speech, the sentence is mostly symbolic. Of course it can be bad publicity to go through the lawsuit, but it can likely also boost support from those who agree.

It nearly goes without saying that the nationalist party continuously argue that the law should be removed, since it is so unfair they cant "criticize muslims". I would not be surprised if it does get removed at some point, or at least made less restrictive (though it is hard to see how it could be less restrictive without removing it).

To be honest I dont think it would have much effect at all, if the law was removed. Personally I like that it exists though. If nothing else, at least it shows what is not considered acceptable.

Some examples of the law being applied (alert: somewhat nasty language below, though my translation likely makes it a less harsh than the original. My hate speech vocabulary just isn't big enough Dont know if it is OK to post these, if not I will gladly remove them.)

Spoiler:

A politician from the danish nationalist party, wrote in a newspaper "The truth appears to be that muslim fathers murder their daughters, and ignore that their uncles rape them" ($800 fine).

Some guy from a muslim organisation spread handbills "Wherever you find Jews, kill them. Jews are traitorous etc etc". 60 days suspended sentence. Of course that one actually had threats and inciting violence in it, and not 'only' hate speech.

A woman wrote on a newspaper internet forum: "Muslim men extensively rape, and kill their daughters. Islam is is a defective human-hating culture etc etc". Got fined around $800.

Another politician from the danish nationalist party: "The muslims continue [killing Jews] where Hitler failed. Only way to stop them, is to respond like we did toward Hitler". Got fined around $800

TheGameguru wrote:

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.

This is a perfect demonstration of exactly what I'm saying. Their behavior is intolerable, and they must be forced to comply.

They can do "force to comply" too, and they're better at it. It makes them very happy to do so, in fact.

Shadout wrote:

Abortion being illegal was part of the original social contract? How do you determine that?

It wasn't. But, for the most part, it's up to Congress to set those rules. Conservatives have been winning in Congress pretty consistently over the years, and more and more consistently over time, and the only thing that has stopped them has been the Supreme Court. Most social rules are supposed to be imposed either via Congress or the state level, and most of the liberal ideas have been imposed via the courts. It means that the broad population of the country wasn't convinced, just five old people in robes were, and that's kind of a problem. Even if you think it's the right outcome (which I do), by not doing it through Congress, you didn't really win the argument.

If the constitution does not make it illegal, isn't it up to Congress to adjust the constitution to make it illegal,

Congress can't adjust the Constitution itself, but they can pass laws. It can certainly be argued that making abortion illegal was never a power that was granted to Congress by the People; I'm pretty sympathetic to that idea. But, at the same time, a very large majority of this country thinks abortion should be illegal, and that majority gets larger every year. The only thing stopping them is the opinion of five people, which is inherently an extremely fragile position.

The liberals haven't really been winning arguments over the last fifty years. They've been sort of cheating their way around the issue that most people kind of suck. And that tactic is failing now, and the fact that the arguments weren't actually settled is coming back to bite liberals in the ass. Authoritarian conservatives will cheerfully force you to comply, too, and the more suffering they can inflict, the bigger their smiles will be.

Malor wrote:

Congress can't adjust the Constitution itself, but they can pass laws. It can certainly be argued that making abortion illegal was never a power that was granted to Congress by the People; I'm pretty sympathetic to that idea. But, at the same time, a very large majority of this country thinks abortion should be illegal, and that majority gets larger every year. The only thing stopping them is the opinion of five people, which is inherently an extremely fragile position.

You are very, very, very wrong about this. 19% of the US thinks that abortion should be illegal. Your statement that a "very large majority" is being stymied by 5 people has no bearing in reality.

The liberals haven't really been winning arguments over the last fifty years. They've been sort of cheating their way around the issue that most people kind of suck. And that tactic is failing now, and the fact that the arguments weren't actually settled is coming back to bite liberals in the ass. Authoritarian conservatives will cheerfully force you to comply, too, and the more suffering they can inflict, the bigger their smiles will be.

As far as I can tell by your definition nobody wins arguments. You seem to be saying that anything that has any controversy at all is open for discussion. As long as anyone (or just some conservatives?) are still upset about anything it's up for debate? I don't see how you can ever "settle" anything. As far as some people are concerned we haven't even settled the Earth being goddamn round.

Wasn't Ron Paul going on about how the Civil Rights Act was oppressive like five years ago and whenever the Republican Party gets hold of Congress they try to undermine it? But that's 'settled' because it happened in Congress, right?

Seriously, what do you expect us to do? Not avail ourselves of the legal means to secure our rights (e.g, sue) because fascists don't like it?

Shadout wrote:

(my awful translation below, since I couldn't find a freely available translation anywhere)
Anyone who publicly or with widespread publication in mind spreads statements, by which a person or group is threatened or demeaned because of their race, color, ethnicity or nationality, religious faith or sexual orientation is punished by fine or imprisonment for up to two years.
When determining the sentence, it shall be regarded as a particularly aggravating circumstance if the statement is part of propaganda.

Thanks for that. Looking at the original text, does the rule attach the intent element to the act of spreading statement, the effect of the statement to threaten and demean, or both? Or is it not clear?

Malor wrote:

Most social rules are supposed to be imposed either via Congress or the state level, and most of the liberal ideas have been imposed via the courts. It means that the broad population of the country wasn't convinced, just five old people in robes were, and that's kind of a problem. Even if you think it's the right outcome (which I do), by not doing it through Congress, you didn't really win the argument.

Last year, the Massachusetts state legislature passed a law that granted state-wide public accommodations rights to trans people and the (Republican) governor signed it. Immediately afterward, a ballot initiative to repeal that law got enough signatures to get onto the 2018 ballot.

I don't know where you get this idea that going through Congress or a state legislative body 'settles' an argument and is the only proper method to do so or is somehow less provocative to conservatives, because it doesn't, and it isn't. Fascists and bigots don't give a damn about the will of the people or democracy, it's a smokescreen for oppression, and it always has been.

TheGameguru wrote:
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.

This is a perfect demonstration of exactly what I'm saying. Their behavior is intolerable, and they must be forced to comply.
They can do "force to comply" too, and they're better at it. It makes them very happy to do so, in fact.

We are forced to comply with lots of things so I'm not sure why this is so complicated for you to understand. Racism and Bigotry are bad.. full stop. The fact that we've allowed conservatives to waffle on this with bullsh*t like Religious Freedom or Religious Defense acts is a problem. If we fix this problem and make it impossible for those that wish to limit equality we create a better world for the majority.

Honestly even if the majority felt that gay people should have less equality and black people should be slaves I would still say lets nuke all those people and get back to equal rights for everyone...because in that version the majority are subhuman and should be removed from society.

Edit

The important thing to remember and I can't stress this enough is that even in these so called "comply" scenarios.. the only thing the one side if being forced to comply with is essentially stop trying to take away another human beings right to equality. They actually aren't being forced to do anything to their own quality of life or being.

Malor, or you saying checks and balances are not a good feature of our Constitution. You seem to want to rewrite the functionality of the Supreme Court. If the majority of the country decided to lock up Muslims, until we figure out what's going on, is it really a bug that the Supreme Court could shut that down?

You keep saying five old people in robes as though there is not an entire process that goes into their selection, with a complete understanding that they do have the power they wield. So yeah, all laws have to pass their muster, and I don't have a problem with that. And even then, it is very rare that the Supreme Court touches a law.

What is your idea that would be more fair?

Jayhawker wrote:

What is your idea that would be more fair?

Update their wardrobes! Everything feels better when it's coming from five old people in capris.

Malor wrote:

They can do "force to comply" too, and they're better at it. It makes them very happy to do so, in fact.

If we reach that point, Malor, we're already at Civil War 2.0 and this abstract discussion about free speech will be moot. Then the only thing to be discussed is what America do you want to live in: one dominated white Christians who are so afraid of everything and everyone that they're using force to stomp one anyone not like them (something that, thanks to demographics, will be increasingly hard to do), or an America that is much closer to the ideals of our founders that all people are created equal.

Malor wrote:

Most social rules are supposed to be imposed either via Congress or the state level, and most of the liberal ideas have been imposed via the courts. It means that the broad population of the country wasn't convinced, just five old people in robes were, and that's kind of a problem. Even if you think it's the right outcome (which I do), by not doing it through Congress, you didn't really win the argument.

So programs like the New Deal and the Great Society were imposed by the courts?

Using the word "imposed" is simply wrong. Roe v. Wade was based on a multitude of previous legal rulings--some nearly a century old at the time--that determined that people actually do have a right to privacy even though it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Given your views on mass surveillance I doubt you'd also say that SCOTUS "imposed" the right of privacy on Americans and you'd have a very dim view on anyone trying to legislate that right away.

And the whole "you didn't go through Congress, so you didn't really win the argument" thing is absolute garbage. Our system of government is such that the courts are the ultimate arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. They found Texas' law banning abortions to be unconstitutional for reasons that made all state (and federal) laws banning abortions unconstitutional.

That Congress didn't attempt its only recourse--a Constitutional amendment--doesn't mean the pro-choice movement didn't really win the argument over abortion. It means that the anti-choice movement didn't and doesn't have the political clout or national backing to nuke Roe v Wade.

Malor wrote:

Congress can't adjust the Constitution itself, but they can pass laws. It can certainly be argued that making abortion illegal was never a power that was granted to Congress by the People; I'm pretty sympathetic to that idea. But, at the same time, a very large majority of this country thinks abortion should be illegal, and that majority gets larger every year. The only thing stopping them is the opinion of five people, which is inherently an extremely fragile position.

The Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution would disagree with you about the power of Congress to make laws (and, by extension, state legislatures).

Also, a very large majority of Americans doesn't think abortion should be illegal and that majority hasn't gotten larger over every year.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/7pvM9JJ.png)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/iWdgH4p.png)

And, no, the opinion of five people isn't the only thing stopping abortion from becoming illegal again. Roe v Wade is legal precedent that you can't make laws making abortion illegal. That ruling was a natural extension of numerous other legal decisions that established the precedent that Americans have a right to privacy.

Getting Roe v Wade overturned would take decades and decades of absolutely shocking legal decisions that would either ignore or tear down existing precedent and that's simply not how our system works.

Seriously, Malor, this is like Civics 101 stuff.

He's try to get everyone to understand the point of view of the people upset by the country moving. Not saying whether it's right or wrong or what should be done about it. Stop piling on Malor because he is trying to describe how some people feel, not that he agrees with them. He's also stating that we shouldn't be surprised that people who lose political arguments get pissed about it and react badly. A lot of people are children who not only want to take their ball and go home when the don't get what they want, they want to take everyone else's ball, too.

The numbers pretty clearly show that a majority of Americans want progressive laws and social behavior. It's the gerry-mandered into power minority that's causing problems by throwing fits and writing horrible laws.

Tanglebones wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

What is your idea that would be more fair?

Update their wardrobes!

truth is always stranger than fiction: in 1995

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 70, sent shock waves through the marble hallways of the U.S. Supreme Court when he showed up wearing a black robe with brilliant gold stripes on each sleeve. For generations, Supreme Court justices have worn plain black robes--a visible sign of their fierce neutrality. Rehnquist said he personally designed the new adornment--four inch-wide horizontal stripes per sleeve, situated midway between shoulder and elbow. He got the idea, he said, by watching the Gilbert & Sullivan comic opera "Iolanthe." A British lord chancellor is decorated that way.
Mixolyde wrote:

He's try to get everyone to understand the point of view of the people upset by the country moving.

Their racist and radical Christian points of view are already well known.

2016 moved those people from the "just f*cking die already so America can move on" column to the "active threats against America" column.

OG_slinger wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

He's try to get everyone to understand the point of view of the people upset by the country moving.

Their racist and radical Christian points of view are already well known.

2016 moved those people from the "just f*cking die already so America can move on" column to the "active threats against America" column.

They could have had the country they wanted if it wasn't for that pesky constitution. Now they want to pretend that the Supreme Court is not fair.

I don't seem to be doing a very good job of expressing my argument.

What I keep trying to say: "For the last seventy years or so, you've been winning arguments by forcing the other side to comply, by being lefty authoritarian, and you have moved steadily toward more authoritarian measures over time. "

Everyone else: "But it was okay for us to be authoritarian because...."

It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter how justified you felt it was. You've been building the machinery to force other people to comply with your picture of how life should be for the last fifty or seventy years (probably since the New Deal, really), and now that machinery is being turned against you.

No, you're expressing yourself clearly, but you keep characterizing marginalized people availing themselves of their legal rights to petition the government as "lefty authoritarians" and "forcing the other side to comply", when what they've been doing are fully within the bounds of their First Amendment rights, implying their exercise of their legal rights are illegitimate. Which says a lot all by itself.

We did the judicial thing, we did the legislative thing. There is literally no way to satisfy you in this argument because you've decided that civil rights agitators have it coming.

e: Let's review:

Executive order? Massive conservative backlash and we had it coming for being authoritarian.
Federal/State court decisions? Massive conservative backlash and we had it coming for being authoritarian.
Municipalities/states pass civil rights laws? Massive conservative backlash and we had it coming for being authoritarian.

How many conservative signatures of permission do I need to gather for "Freyja gets to pee in all 50 states" before you knock this crap off?

No, you're expressing yourself clearly, but you keep characterizing marginalized people availing themselves of their legal rights to petition the government as "lefty authoritarians", implying their exercise of their legal rights are illegitimate.

No, that's something you're adding.

Authoritarianism, at its core, is about forcing people to comply with a behavior standard, whether or not they agree with it. And everything in this thread has been reasons why it's okay to force conservatives to act the way liberals want them to act.

Maybe it's justified. Maybe it isn't. But it is absolutely authoritarian, and those tools are now being used in ways the left doesn't like. You've made a society where, in order to make some people feel welcome, you've made a different batch feel like they can't be part of the social fabric, and they're fighting back. You didn't convince them, you forced them.

And the argument of "but we couldn't convince them so we HAD to force them" might be true, but you still forced them. And now they're going to start forcing you.

The second layer of argument there is that "they can't be part of our society, what they are doing is unjust." That might be true, but if they can't be part of your society, then they're going to make a new society that DOES accept them, and they're going to do it in the places they live, using the power they wield.

Malor wrote:

I don't seem to be doing a very good job of expressing my argument.

What I keep trying to say: "For the last seventy years or so, you've been winning arguments by forcing the other side to comply, by being lefty authoritarian, and you have moved steadily toward more authoritarian measures over time. "

Everyone else: "But it was okay for us to be authoritarian because...."

It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter how justified you felt it was. You've been building the machinery to force other people to comply with your picture of how life should be for the last fifty or seventy years (probably since the New Deal, really), and now that machinery is being turned against you.

The courts aren't a lefty authoritarian organization, Malor. They are the third branch of our government and are essential to our system of checks and balances. They perform an absolutely vital role in making sure that the legislature doesn't make stupid or unconstitutional laws and the executive doesn't overstep its authority.

The ruling they make "force the other side to comply" because that's how the rule of law works.

Prior to Roe v Wade women were forced to comply with state laws that made abortion a crime. But I honestly have no idea how the post-Roe v Wade world forced people on the right to comply because it's not like SCOTUS ruled that all women *had* to get an abortion.

I get that religious people might feel uncomfortable with that decision, but their feeling have nothing to do with Constitutional rights. And the Constitution guides our country, not the Bible.

And if you still think that rulings like Roe v Wade are five opinions away from being overturned, then you should spend some time reading up on how our court system works.

Because I'm seriously puzzled at how that machinery is being turned against me when the courts are telling Trump to f*ck off with his travel ban and telling states they can't racially gerrymander districts.

That the courts have repeatedly ruled against the various things that the right has wanted and for the things that the left has championed should tell you which side represents the real America.

You're describing laws. If you wanna make an argument for a government-free society go ahead and do it, but don't act like the left is somehow just as bad as the right because the right is sad they're not allowed to oppress me without consequence.

e:

Malor wrote:

You've made a society where, in order to make some people feel welcome, you've made a different batch feel like they can't be part of the social fabric, and they're fighting back. You didn't convince them, you forced them.

We've made a society where some people feel like they can't be part of the social fabric? We did that? This is the utterly ahistorical take you're going with?

And the Supreme Court has ruled against the left many, many times.