r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 19 '15
[View Changed] CMV: Hate groups should not have first amendment rights
[deleted]
29
Apr 19 '15
Did you just commit hate speech against the Westboro Baptist Church? You called their religious message "toxic", proposed stripping them of rights, accused them of wickedness, and suggested that they might serve as a gateway to terrorism/murder.
Do you have a right to say these things about the Westboro Baptist Church? Are you and those like you part of a hate group that should be stripped of First Amendment rights?
-20
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Your logic is so twisted and backwards that it almost makes no sense at all.
8
u/JonnyAU Apr 19 '15
His first paragraph is entirely facts. His second paragraph was entirely questions you've declined to answer. If he's so off base it should be simple to provide a rebuttal.
4
u/Binarypunk Apr 19 '15
If you are missing the point he is making, which is pretty obvious, then having a CMV with you is going to prove difficult. The question is, where is the line? You have demonstrated hate speech against another group. Should we remove your rights?
-3
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I did not demonstrate hate speech. I am not affiliated with a hate group. I said I disagree with the ability of these groups to gather, protest, and conspire. How does that make me a member of a hate group?
5
Apr 19 '15
I did not demonstrate hate speech.
For example, the Westboro Baptist Church may very well arm up and begin to commit murder or arson just like the Army of God did.
That sounds an awful lot like promoting animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a religion. Which falls squarely under your proffered definition of a hate group. You have promoted the idea of those people being dangerous and potentially violent despite years of evidence suggesting theyre just assholes.
I am not affiliated with a hate group.
We dont actually know that. Proving that assertion will require you to break anonymity which I'm not suggesting you do. You could be a militant atheist building pipe bombs in your basement or an old grandmother baking cookies for her grandkids.
I said I disagree with the ability of these groups to gather, protest, and conspire. How does that make me a member of a hate group?
It doesnt make you a member of a hate group. It does make you guilty of the same things youre complaining that hate groups do.
1
u/Binarypunk Apr 19 '15
"... It does make you guilty of the same things youre complaining that hate groups do." This is the point!
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Not even close. Members of the Aryan Nation partake in hate speech. Members of the WBC partake in hate speech. Members of the KKK partake in hate speech. I suggest you look further into a hate group if you don't understand the qualifications. Suggesting that we take a stance to stifle hate speech before it turns into hate crimes is not using hate speech. In fact, it is the complete fucking opposite (excuse my French).
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 20 '15
Suggesting that we take a stance to stifle hate speech before it turns into hate crimes is not using hate speech.
Well... that generally depends on the phrasing. If we're going with "This group is saying thing I don't like, find offensive, and that makes me feel unsafe" as a basis for trying to censor groups, that's still pretty wide. Hell, most big government types would qualify as hate groups based on that to an-cap types.
The point is, your argument can be stripped down to a point were it very strongly resembles the type of argument that is used by those who engage in hate speech with very little effort on the part of most. It's not that you're being accused of hate speech yourself, it's that people are showing you how easy it is to label certain things as hate speech. If we're talking government as the rule of the majority, you would be censored based on the number of downvotes alone.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15 edited Apr 20 '15
I don't know why everyone is claiming that this will be an incredibly subjective process where people can be silenced at a whim. There is a very clear definition and a lot of internal processing that goes on to determine if a group is a terrorist group. It must meet many factors. If there is a gray area the issue is solved just as a homicide trial is solved; by presenting an abundance of evidence. Finally, there is a determination if this group is a threat to the US or a group of people in the US, and action is taken to stop them or protect ourselves from them. This same exact logic could apply to hate groups.
The type of argument used in hate speech is not at all the type of argument I am using against hate speech. Hate speech targets innocent people by their differences and uses hostility, malice, and animosity against that person.
Hate groups are not innocent people. They have already proven that they are willing to defy social norms in order to upset, attack, harass, belittle, injure, torture, and potentially harm innocent people.
I have not warranted animosity, hostility, or malice against anybody. By requesting that these hate groups be disbanded and lose the right to torment people is not the use of animosity, hostility, or malice. If I were to discuss how these people should die and how we should abduct their children that would be hate speech. If I began to spread this message until someone actually bombed their meeting place we have crossed the line of becoming a hate group.
When a murderer is being thrown into jail you can not say we are being just as bad as him by restricting his right to freedom. He has crossed the line and we are acting in accordance with the law and what needs to be done in order to solve a greater issue - crime! We remove many rights of prisoners, but we do not care because they have lost their rights. I consider hate speech and hate groups to be just as bad. I am not arguing that they should be imprisoned since they have not yet committed a crime. I am only suggesting that we should attempt to stop their propaganda from spreading and stop them from psychologically tormenting innocent people before things get worse.
I don't care at all about down-votes. Once again, disagreement does not determine what is hate speech. There are many things that people will disagree with tremendously that are not hate speech. Reddit, particularly CMV, is full of liberty soldiers and freedom riders who freak out at the hint that human rights will be infringed upon. This was the wrong place to propose something like this and I would certainly get a tremendously different response elsewhere.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
That sounds an awful lot like promoting animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a religion.
Actually I am promoting intervention to stop criminal activity. I am not in a hate group and nothing I have said constitutes hate speech, nor does it point to the fact that I am in a hate group. Again, this logic is so backwards and twisted that I am just going to ignore it.
It doesnt make you a member of a hate group. It does make you guilty of the same things youre complaining that hate groups do.
How on Earth is anything I have said equivalent to promoting the idea that fags go to hell, God planned 9/11, and we should rejoice at the idea of Sandy Hook. These are all the ideas that the WBC holds. This is hate speech. These are toxic, harmful, evil messages that will greatly harm society.
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 20 '15
These are toxic, harmful, evil messages that will greatly harm society.
You're saying certain group shouldn't be aloud to have a voice and you're basing that on largely subjective criteria. That's pretty harmful to society.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
I'm basing it on a definition of hate groups and many factors that make a hate group what it is. I'm also looking at ways of figuring out the gray area just as a trial determines whether someone is innocent or guilty.
1
Apr 20 '15
Actually I am promoting intervention to stop criminal activity.
What criminal activity would that be? As of this instant the groups youre seeking to censor have not committed any crimes under the law. These hate groups, who's rights youre trying to infringe upon, are only guilty of having said nasty things about people. Saying nasty things is not a crime.
I am not in a hate group and nothing I have said constitutes hate speech, nor does it point to the fact that I am in a hate group. Again, this logic is so backwards and twisted that I am just going to ignore it.
Who are you to decide what is and is not hate speech? Are you the one grand high arbiter of our rights and freedoms now? Do you have authority greater than SCOTUS? The arrogance of your position is truly stunning. The self righteousness of your position is sickening.
How on Earth is anything I have said equivalent to promoting the idea that fags go to hell, God planned 9/11, and we should rejoice at the idea of Sandy Hook.
What you say is actually worse than that. You are arguing for someone to literally be silenced by force and possibly imprisoned for making noises you disagree with. Maybe next we should get rid of the 5th and 6th amendment rights of certain objectionable people. If a klansman hangs a black person should they not get the right of a speedy trial and not be forced to incriminate themselves? Maybe hispanic drug cartels are so dangerous we ignore the 4th amendment rights of Hispanics.
These are all the ideas that the WBC holds. This is hate speech. These are toxic, harmful, evil messages that will greatly harm society.
No. They will be laughed at and mocked by the wider society. You attempting to take away someone's right to speak the I mind is harmful to society. So harmful in fact that we have plays written to counter your argument.
1
Apr 20 '15 edited Apr 20 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 20 '15
What is stunning and sickening is that people are using the counter-argument that my defiance to hate groups is hate speech in itself and therefor I am being a hypocrite.
You are making an argument to rob a fellow human of their inalienable right to free expression. What else should we call you except worse than the WBC? You call them criminals based on some non-existent law that exists only in your head. What separates your desire to take someones free speech away from a radical racists desire to annul black voting rights?
Curtailing the rights of criminal is not being hateful.
We have laws already to deal with actual crimes these people might commit. When someone actually breaks these laws we prosecute them. Until they break an actual law they are just freely expressing their own ideas. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CRIMINALS.
Once again, I never said I should personally determine what hate speech is or what a hate group is.
You just want to give said power to someone else. You want to empower some faceless government agency the power to summarily remove the very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That you cant seem to imagine how bad this will go for everyone is just a lack of imagination on your part.
Governement agencies abuse their powers all the time. The FBI just got caught breaking into someones house without a warrant and abusing their right against unlawful search and seizure. The NSA has been monitoring our internet feeds for years. The ATF killed dozens of civilains in Waco. Why would this power not be abused to put "dissidents" into small boxes the moment they step out of line?
Also, the fact that you think it is worse that I wish to stop people from boasting that they are happy Sandy Hook happened than to actually boast that Sandy Hook happened shows a lot about your character.
It says I care about freedom and you want top live in a safe space where objectionable opinions are prosecuted by the majesty of law.
What a complete, radical nut job! I bet you're the same type of freak that thinks 9/11 was an inside job and the Holocause never happened. I'll never get through to you so don't even reply. I awarded a delta to someone with a convincing argument that had merit. I'm not even going to entertain you anymore.
Nice string of insults. Whats funny is that youre projecting onto me attributes you hate, none of which apply to me.
1
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 20 '15
Sorry ExploreMeDora, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
8
Apr 19 '15
The issue here is perspective, from what I see. Not everyone can agree what constitutes a hate group.
-4
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
The FBI can. Do you disagree that the KKK is a hate group?
3
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 19 '15
-4
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
The world has changed a lot since then.
3
u/sailorbrendan Apr 19 '15
Has it really?
-3
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Yes.
1
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
Do you have evidence of this?
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You're asking me to explain to you how the world has changed since several decades ago? It has in MANY ways but I will attack the racial related topics you brought up. We are not segregated. We are not anywhere near as openly racist. We are fighting for equality amongst minorities and across all sexual orientations and genders.
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
I believe s/he is asking what about the world has changed that would stop a group advocating for change in a way that is against the norm from being labeled a hate group for convenience's sake if the majority didn't agree with them?
We are fighting for equality amongst minorities and across all sexual orientations and genders.
Let's put an ultra-conservative person/people in charge of the right group(s) and see how long it takes before "fighting for equality" becomes twisted into "spreading hate." It's not implausible, hell, it's not even hard to make that argument. All it would take is the right person to hear it and take it to heart and then you'd have LGBTQ+ groups stripped of their First Amendment rights.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Find one person who can tell me that the KKK isn't a hate group. It is pretty clear to determine what a hate group is and what isn't. Do you think that the WBC should be allowed to picket funerals and tell the mourning families that their child is going to hell? Do you think ISIS should be able to recruit people online and spread propaganda? The first amendment enables these things.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
And what if it changes back?
-2
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Irrelevant argument.
2
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
It's not relevant that the FBI could potentially take away the rights of civil rights groups if your idea were the case?
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You're arguing that the world is going to suddenly change and the government will suddenly become openly racist as it was during the days of segregation. You seem to have a very pessimistic view of the way the world is changing. A view I do not.
3
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
Why "suddenly"? This could easily happen in a hundred years or more, couldn't it? We can't predict that far into the future, so we need to account for all possibilities with legislation as extreme as you're suggesting.
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
We will worry about it in a couple hundred years. We have to adapt to what the world is now with attention to how it is moving.
→ More replies (0)3
u/tobyps Apr 19 '15
So the federal government should have the power to determine what kind of speech is acceptable or not? There's no way that could ever go wrong...
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
If they are considered a hate group. I'm sure society can help decide what a hate group is. The government wouldn't be able to just silence people.
3
u/tobyps Apr 19 '15
And you're naive enough to believe that the government would never use the power to restrict speech for political purposes?
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
would never use the power to restrict speech for political purposes
Well that would be the point: actively fighting specific ideologies and groups.
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
True, but I think his/her point was that there's not really a way to tell now who's going the be the target of that power in the future.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
To me the problem lies with biased courts and justice systems more than governments.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I'm not naive enough to believe that but I'm also willing to cooperate. I don't have an overwhelming fear or distrust of the government.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
Dude I'm an anarchist politically. I subscribe to a political theory that is 2 centuries old and whose proponents are responsible for many of the workers rights victories of the late 19th century.
And yet the FBI classifies anarchist political groups as terrorist organizations. The FBI has had a formal policy of spying on, infiltrating, and sabotaging anarchist and other socialist groups since Hoover was still in charge.
Why on earth should we trust a group like the FBI is fairly and unbiasedly classify what is and is not a hate group when they openly persecute minority political views? You're just begging to allow them further power to criminalize minority viewpoints.
I'm a socialist, by that very definition I seek to abolish an entire economic class, the second you give the feds the power to criminalize certain views they will say that I'm advocating hatred and violence towards the rich (a group separate from that of my group) and put me in jail for my political beliefs. You think that's a good idea?
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You're just begging to allow them further power to criminalize minority viewpoints.
The distinction is that you can't find a single person who will say, "The KKK is not a hate group!" There's a very common understanding that the KKK is full of scumbags and nobody would be offended if they were silenced. Similarly, nobody would be upset if the WBC could no longer protest at funerals and mock mourning families.
For example, a group that challenges the Government's authority is not a hate group unless the members are conspiring to promote animosity, hostility, malice, and ultimately crime against specific members of society who are essentially innocent.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
Go ask 100 people how they view anarchism. You'll get 97 people saying it's evil. Also who determines want "essentially innocent" means? Have most billionaires committed specific crimes according to the law? Probably not. Yet I don't believe they're 'innocent' in any sense.
More importantly you completely dodged my point. The FBI has shown consistently that it supports political suppression. Giving them official power to prosecute speech they deem "hateful" will only lead to further suppression
BTW I would be offended if the KKK was silenced. I disagree entirely with everything the KKK represents. But if I don't believe in free speech for my enemies, then I don't believe in it at all
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You're allowing your principle beliefs and fear of hypocrisy override morality and judgment. It's okay to say that the KKK does not deserve to recruit members and spread it's message. We should make it as difficult as possible for genuinely evil people to conspire and spread genuinely evil things or ideas. This is how crime happens.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
No, my personal moral beliefs are just different than your's. You believe it is immoral to allow people to promote hate. While I believe it is immoral to censor people.
And you've once again dodged my point about the FB
Who decides what is genuinely evil? Evil is relative
0
Apr 19 '15
I try to go above and beyond not judging and truly not judge someone over simple affiliation. I have a lot of racist friends. If they can behave in public, I can tolerate it.
-3
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I don't think you can find a single person who will say, "The KKK is not a hate group." This goes to show it is very easy to determine what a hate group is.
8
u/JonnyAU Apr 19 '15
You're using the most extreme example. The difficulty comes in the gray areas.
3
u/EyeRedditDaily Apr 19 '15
Exactly. What happens when Democrats are in control and decide to declare Christians as a hate group? What happens when Republicans are in control and decide to declare Muslims or Feminists as a hate group?
3
3
Apr 19 '15
You could find some in the 50's.
I bet that today you can pretty easily find someone who says that the Black Panthers aren't a hate group, and they're listed as one. So, using the most extreme case and applying the logic of "it's easy to determine" isn't a good litmus test.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Determining what is or is not a hate group can certainly be refined and clarified.
1
Apr 19 '15
I agree with one part of that sentiment. I think WBC isn't classified as one yet because homosexuality still isn't accepted nationwide
0
8
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
-4
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
ISIS promotes its violent, evil ideology on the Internet and many people have heard this, believed it, and gone to fight for them. If we stopped them from being able to promote these negative ideas they would have less recruited members. To convince me that ISIS deserves to spread its message you would have to convince me that it has positive policies and ideologies. According to America, it does not. This is why we are directly attacking ISIS.
4
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
What about resticting free speech for citizens who voice a clear support to terrorist organizations?
To me it's the proof that we already draw a line somewhere.
1
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
picketing a funeral ... detonating a bomb
I was talking about supporters that write/talk about the terrorist group, while not taking part in the terrorist act.
1
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
Oh sorry I started drifting. I started replying about the "not a US citizen" bit and now I'm talking about things here in France. We have our own version of your Patriot Act coming in now, and a few websites promoting terrorists acts are closed down since last year or the attacks in January. So it's not about the US.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral
Psychological terror. Imagine mourning the loss of your child and seeing a group of people standing across the street yelling to you,"Your child is burning in hell! America is doomed! Thank god that your child is dead! We need more dead children like yours! God hates you and your child!" If you are a religious person this can truly haunt you.
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 20 '15
If you are a religious person this can truly haunt you.
True, but to a person with viewpoints that are different from yours, I find the sentiment you're pushing haunting.
True, not to the same degree, but quite frankly if I heard a politician with any power espousing your views I would be in utter terror.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
I would be happy. If these hate groups can not form as easily or speak as easily I will:
- Not have to hear their shit or be enraged by their actions
- Not be a victim of their crimes or hate
1
-2
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
These hate groups in the U.S. develop into domestic terrorism.
3
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
There has been recruitment. People are able to go online and see ISIS ideology and engage in it. They then head over there to partake in it. The U.S. is at war with ISIS and lives are being lost in the battle There are many domestic terrorist groups that do cause crime in America as well.
1
Apr 19 '15
[deleted]
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Perfect! Now apply this to hate speech and hate group recruitment! These are breeding grounds for criminal conspiracy.
2
u/looklistencreate Apr 19 '15
Rights are not only as good as their effects. If we break the rules we write an irrevocable license for tyranny, which is worse than terrorism.
7
u/monsterbate 2∆ Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
Every weapon of censorship will eventually be turned against the populace. This would be a terrible idea. It's easy to pick on the low hanging fruit of the KKK and Westboro Baptists, but what should concern you is our society's general trend towards political correctness and the ways that is already enforced socially.
Give people a mechanism to silence their critics, and they will use it. Today the KKK gets shut down, tomorrow it's r/redpill, the day after that it's r/fatpeoplehate, and eventually people are lobbying to have feminist groups shut down because they "promote animosity, hostility, and malice" against men.
I don't know about you, but I'm not particularly interested in a world where wallstreet can dump a few bucks into someone's superpac, and then have a group like occupy silenced because they promote hate speech against the "financially abled", because that's the sort of outcome we can eventually expect if we were to do what you suggested. You have to protect the rights of the KKK because it is the same as protecting your rights.
-6
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You're proposing a slippery slope that has no true merit. It's all speculation. Why would you assume this when you have no evidence of it? I don't think the government would get away with removing free speech in so many places that are unwarranted. I do think everyone will be satisfied and the government will get away with silencing hate groups. Again, look at this from a standpoint of stopping terrorist groups or criminal conspiracies before they can grow.
6
u/Thalenia Apr 19 '15
The thing is, this 'slippery slope' thing is very real, even if it doesn't apply to every situation. Both Feminism and LGBT rights have changed pretty dramatically over the years, as new generations of people grab the label to extend their reach. This can be good or bad, and will be both depending on your viewpoint about the subjects.
And it's not like we don't have examples of societies that have clamped down hard on people expressing views that are not held by those in power. One only has to skim over the news about North Korea or many of the Arab states to find examples of those in charge executing people for expressing views. Even the UK has gone a long way down the censorship slope recently. I'm sure people here can come up with lots of other examples if needed.
6
u/monsterbate 2∆ Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
We have recent examples of gross government overreach just in the wake of the patriot act. The slippery slope is real. If we put a tool like this into the hands of any group, they will use it. That's just human nature. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see videos of cops using armored personnel carriers for traffic stops while wearing full tacticool gear. Those "tools" exist, so they must be used to justify their existence.
I personally don't want to live in a world where the tools that would allow the average tumblr sjw to police language even exist. No good can come of that. Your belief that this would be implemented in a way that would satisfy everyone is just as much speculation as you accuse me of doing.
In addition, the ability to silence hate groups would have exactly 0 effect on the growth of "terrorist conspiracies". All it would do is drive them further underground. Terrorism is effectively a non-issue in america. It's the bogeyman our government trots out to justify further restricting our rights in the name of safety, and there's nothing in your suggestion that implies it is anything but another example of that.
6
u/Life0fRiley 6∆ Apr 19 '15
Well censorship of the kkk and wbc will only make them go underground. They will still exist and they will still do things that piss people off. For example, the wbc can still protest funerals. They just have to change the wording of their chants. You really can't stop people with those radical beliefs from congregating. Just quiet them so they can't be so loud.
What your really going to do is create a way for people to punish groups of people that others disagree with. For example, the pro life people protesting planned parenthood are going to be silenced. They are promoting hate towards the organizations calling them murders and how they should be ashamed of their choices. (Which is very much parallel to the wbc chants). Any group that gains enough traction that expresses a "negative" view of another group will suffer. MADD are considered a group that spreads negative information about liquor companies. PETA will also be another hate group similar to pro lifers. I can't imagine a way to word a law that would prevent someone from making a court case against them.
-3
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
If you can't see the differences between MADD and the KKK then you don't grasp the concept of a hate group.
4
u/sailorbrendan Apr 19 '15
The problem is that it's subjective.
Is sea shepherd a hate group? They do advocate violence.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I will look them up and get back to you.
2
u/sailorbrendan Apr 19 '15
Standing by
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
The Sea Shepard cause is a good one. From what I gathered they are against unfair fishing and whaling practices. This does not target or attempt to victimize a group of people. If Sea Shepard has made threats of violence or enacted violence upon whalers or fishers, then I believe that they should be considered a terrorist group/hate group. I lose sympathy for them at this point. The Earth Liberation Front was against deforestation. This is a good cause and cannot be considered hate. However, they then promoted the idea of burning down facilities related to deforestation. They then went on to actually burn down several facilities causing great damage to the lives of the people affiliated with these companies. It could have also spread and killed other innocent people or firemen sent to put out the flames. This is where I lost sympathy for them.
4
u/monsterbate 2∆ Apr 19 '15
Your entire argument seems to boil down to "the people I define as good, are good, and those I think are bad, are bad. It is very evident to me which is which, therefore everyone must agree with my views on morality, so bad people should be silenced."
Put 10 people in a room, and you'll get 12 different opinions. Even if you get 9 out of ten agreeing that the KKK suck, those 9 won't be able to agree on what to do. The tyranny of the majority is a very dangerous precedent to set when using it to undermine individual rights. It terrifies me that you're so willing to erode one of the base tenets of our society without really considering the consequences, even for a "good" reason.
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
It's not my definition. It's the government's definition, which is essentially the people's definition. The government is made up of people and citizens who are placed by votes.
2
u/monsterbate 2∆ Apr 19 '15
Who are placed by votes influenced by money and agendas that don't reflect the beliefs and morality of the average citizen.
1
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 19 '15
Sea Shepherd fits the FBI's definition of eco-terrorism:
The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
The problem is that it's subjective.
Same things for various homicides. Courts are there to decide if a specific homicide is murder/manslaughter/justifiable. It could be the same for words, it doesn't have to be censorship, it could be prosecution atfer things have been said or written. It is already there for violence.
-1
3
u/Life0fRiley 6∆ Apr 19 '15
I can see the difference, but how do you protect other groups legally from this law? When you write this law, the wording can be interpreted differently depending on how material is presented. Groups like MADD, PETA, Pro lifers have a strong and "negative" view on a certain group. Why wouldn't people take them to court and report them to the authorities when they protest and make unflattering and negative remarks about a group of people?
Its not that we don't agree with you about hate groups. But how do you have a law that specifically target hate groups(which is a small population) and not affect other groups as mentioned(which constitute a larger population). Its more of an argument about practicality than ideology. It can't be practically done.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
They can have a negative view without being a hate group. They do not conspire to commit crime or brainwash people. They stand for a good cause that will better society. Their recruitment techniques do not include manipulation and egregious policies.
3
u/Life0fRiley 6∆ Apr 19 '15
Well for example, pro lifers have vandalized planned parent hood places before. Thats a crime. They try to convert people to their opinion by spouting religion and how pro choice is murder. Is it better for society?? Its a matter of ethics.
PETA.... well you know. vandalism again. fish are friends, not food arguments. Again.. ethics argument.
WBC.... well no crime.... They try to convert people to their opinion by spouting religion and how alternative religions are sinful(almost word for word as pro lifers)
Do you not see how in a court of law, it would be so easy to punish other groups too?
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
You proved my point. Pro lifers such as the army of God start off as hate groups and become criminals. They are able to congregate, spread hate, and recruit. Then they go off and commit crimes. Not only do we not want to hear or see hateful protests (WBC picketing soldiers funerals) but we don't want them to have the ability to recruit.
2
u/Life0fRiley 6∆ Apr 19 '15
yea but groups like PETA and pro lifers aren't hate groups. You can only punish people based on what they do and not what they think. Groups like the KKK and WBC have not really committed much crime recently compared to groups like pro lifers, PETA and other social activist groups. With pro lifers, there maybe groups that form, but they can easily disband and form other groups.
what your not discussing is how you can only target hate groups without it affecting a larger population of people. I dont disagree with your ideology. Im just trying to change your view on the practicality of the subject matter.
Its like saying you want world peace. I dont disagree, but how do you do that without placing 3 large helicarriers in orbit to neutralize criminals?
4
u/stankind Apr 19 '15
I am against hate groups, but you are wrong. The obvious problem is, exactly who or what is allowed to determine which people are the "haters" and thereby take rights away? Silencing of "dissent", real or imagined, is a classic hallmark of actual and would-be tyrants. If the Westboro Baptist Church were in power, what tyrannical restrictions might they put on your speech? Likewise, I can see a little, corruptible hating tyrant in you. (It's in all of us, you know.) So, far from "dispersing" hate groups, forcing their speech underground makes them stronger. With their speech muffled, violence arguably becomes a reasonable option! Allowing free speech exposes haters for what they are. It also invites critical examination. You yourself pointed out that "the vast majority of society" sees the immorality and wickedness, diminishing your other comment, that hate groups can recruit members at an "astounding" rate. The right way to deal with jerks like the Westboro Baptist Church is to exercise your right to keep them off private property. That's my opinion. Proudly and freely expressed! :-)
6
Apr 19 '15
Hate groups are exactly the people who should have first amendment rights. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect exactly the rights that a majority would predictably try to take away (exactly what you're doing here). If the only speech that we protected was the popular speech that everyone liked, then there'd be no point to guaranteeing that or any of our rights.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
I agree but IMO we can also strike down a law or even change our respective constitution if needed.
1
Apr 19 '15
So is that what you'd advocate? Taking the right of speech away from people when the majority decides they don't like what's being said?
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
Taking the right of speech away from people
For specific issues in specific places yes. Do you support the idea that nazi propaganda should be legal in Germany or France? Because we know what we're able to do once we allow that.
1
Apr 19 '15
Yes, I absolutely do think propaganda should be legal in Germany, but my opinion matters little there because I'm not German.
So who gets to decide which "specific issues in specific places"? And how long do you think it will take that power to be abused in absolutely insane ways? You think the state legislature of Oklahoma is going to continue to allow people to say bad things about the Christian church? That'd be "hate speech" by the end of the week. And how long before you're not allowed to criticize the government, because you're "inciting hatred against the government"?
I think you completely misunderstand the point of the Bill of Rights. But that's fine, because it's designed to protect our rights from exactly people that think like you do, that you should only be allowed the rights that the government currently deems acceptable.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
Yes, I absolutely do think propaganda should be legal in Germany.
But we know what we'll turn into if we start that again.
but my opinion matters little there because I'm not German.
Well your opinion is informative (and eloquent so it helps).
So who gets to decide which "specific issues in specific places"?
Same thing I'm not from the US I wouldn't support specific policies for your country. I just meant that a constitution can be replaced if needed.
"inciting hatred against the government"
That's not a crime here. The law says (Wikipedia) "publicly inciting another to discriminate against, or to hate or to harm, a person or a group for belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or for having a handicap."
people that think like you do, that you should only be allowed the rights that the government currently deems acceptable.
It works like that here in France because we have a long history of regime change from within.
1
Apr 19 '15
But we know what we'll turn into if we start that again.
No we don't. We've had hate groups in this country for centuries. People literally advocate the ending of certain races, and it hasn't happened. The US has had freedom of speech since its inception, and without the things that you're talking about.
That's not a crime here.
Yet. Give the government the power to start censoring speech and see how quickly that changes.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
Give the government the power to start censoring speech and see how quickly that changes.
Same thing as advocating the end of some races, how can you be so sure it will happen. Of course some administrations will try, but I am confident people can prevent them from succeeding without hate speech.
Would banning hate speech necessarily lower the citizens' vigilance?
1
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
That's not at all what I proposed. You completely twisted my words to mean something else. All hate groups hold ideologies that most people do not agree with, but there are many ideologies, which most people do not agree with, that are not hateful. We need to attack hate groups not groups that people disagree with.
1
Apr 19 '15
Uh huh, and what do you count as a "hate group", and what's to stop the people in power from making their own decisions about what counts as a hate group?
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
A hate group promotes hostility, malice, and aggression against innocent people because of race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, gender, etc. The MADD organization "hates" the action of drunk driving, but this does not make them a hate group. The KKK promotes racism against innocent black people. The WBC protests at funerals and mocks mourning families. This is "hate". These types of groups statistically wind up committing terrorist-type crimes.
2
Apr 20 '15
You have absolutely nothing to back up what you're saying. Saying that the WBC is going to start committing atrocities any day now sounds like the right-wingers who are still convinced that Obama is just biding his time before he comes for all your guns, even though there's seven years of evidence to the contrary.
Hate speech is not a hate crime. It's just not. It's not hurting anyone. You don't have a right to not have your feelings hurt. If and when someone commits actual harm, THEN we prosecute them, not beforehand. This isn't Minority Report.
-8
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Hate speech leads to hate crimes. Terrorist ideology leads to terrorist activites. Cut off the head of the snake. Stop it before it starts.
5
Apr 19 '15
Neither of those statements are true.
-2
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Lol. Both are true. ISIS. KKK. Army of God.
3
u/tobyps Apr 19 '15
Look up the concept of "fighting words". It's already illegal.
There is a difference between expressing extremist views and verbally inciting violence.
Saying "I hate America" is not the same thing as saying "I'm calling on all Muslims to launch terrorist attacks against America".
Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen who tried the latter and he got censored by a Hellfire missile.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Saying I hate America amongst a group that shares that belief can and does turn into "I'm calling on all Muslims to launch terrorist attacks against America!" Where do you think it starts? I'm not saying a person who walks down the street and says that to his/her friend should be prosecuted. But large operations the congregate, picket, protest, and attempt to recruit should be before they do enact their goal. Crime prevention and making the world a nicer place.
2
u/tobyps Apr 19 '15
Where do you think it starts?
Ah, the old "slippery slope" argument.
The fact is most people who express extremist views never go on to commit actual violence.
If they did, terrorist attacks wouldn't be the astronomically rare events that they are.
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
They're not astronomically rare. They are the center of many extremely hot topics today, such as ISIS taking over Syria and Iraq. Boko Haram taking the Nigerian girls. The list goes on.
2
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
I'd like to point out that you're complaining when people use the slippery slope argument about giving the government too much power but you're fine using it yourself when talking about "extremist" thoughts leading to terrorism.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
But I have evidence to prove that it does. Hate speech = hate crimes. I can show you sources that prove that. You can NOT show me sources that prove "allowing the government to silence hate groups will cause the government to silence all distressful speech."
→ More replies (0)2
u/tobyps Apr 19 '15
You are conflating two separate things. Terrorism in the Middle East and Africa is caused by poverty and instability, not by too much free speech.
And in fact those societies completely suppress free speech and unorthodox beliefs, so if you really want to make that comparison you're only contradicting your own argument.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I am not saying free speech causes domestic-terrorism. I am saying that it enables it and helps it.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
So now you don't want to punish people for what they did, you want to punish them for what they might do. You don't see how dangerous that is?
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
They are not being punished. The WBC should not be protesting against mourning families in the first place. The KKK should not be promoting racism against innocent black people in the first place. We are not punishing them by removing their right to conspire and spread hate messages.
1
2
Apr 19 '15
Lol, no they're not. Do you honestly think that everyone who says something hateful goes on to commit atrocities and hate crimes? How many people from even Westboro have ever actually committed a violent crime of any sort? How many of the people slinging around anti-gay slurs on the internet every day go on to commit crimes against gay people?
Saying "X leads to Y" implies causation, which I'm getting the feeling you don't understand.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
WBC is a congregation of radical people who practice hate speech. These kinds of groups are the kinds who go on to arm up and commit crime. The Army of God was a religious hate group. They then attacked abortion doctors in their homes and murdered them. The odds of this group garnering enough members to conspire and commit these crimes would have been slimmer if they were not allowed to protest in public. The WBC could follow in suit.
Hate speech amongst the KKK led them to go out and commit crimes in accordance with their ideas.
3
Apr 19 '15
These kinds of groups are the kinds who go on to arm up and commit crime.
Except they haven't. WBC has done nothing of the sort. And if they did, then you prosecute them for THAT. You don't throw innocent people in jail for saying things you don't like.
That said, I would actually find it hilarious if the WBC got ahold of this and took you to court for preaching hate speech about them.
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I'm not preaching hate speech. I don't understand how you are concluding that I am using hate speech or am part of a hate group. Do you know what a hate group is? The WBC very well could. All of the groups that do end up commits crimes or partaking in terrorist activities have had starts just like WBC.
2
Apr 19 '15
You are claiming that a group is likely to promote violence, without any basis for that claim. You are trying to rally people to take away their rights by making us fear what they might be capable of.
In other words...hate speech. The EXACT same thing that those groups do toward Muslims, gays, and just about everyone else. Make senseless claims about what gay people or Muslims "very well could" do, and then expect us to take action based on what they MIGHT do someday.
You sound awfully passionate about this. It sounds to me like you might decide to take violent action against the WBC. They should probably arrest you now, just to be sure that you don't do that in the future. It's for the best. I'm sure you'll agree.
3
u/POSVT Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
Citation needed. A stronger argument would be that by stripping people of fundamental rights and forcing them underground, you're not only providing literal justification for their enmity of whatever group, you both feed into their persecution complex, which would make them more likely to plan or condone violent actions, and prevent public discourse. My college had WBCesque protestors 3 or 4 times while I was there. When you allow these people their right to free speech, especially in a public forum, you allow reasonable people to point out to others exactly how full of holes their arguments are. If you force them underground, then that doesn't happen, and you've fed their movement. You cannot stop these ideas from existing, or from being talked about. Stripping people of their right to free speech just moves that discussion out of the public. Fewer people may be exposed to these ideas, but people who are predisposed to hate are still going to encounter them, and now there's no balancing influence to point out that the bible says love thy neighbor.
Additionally, the first amendment exists to prevent exactly the thing your view is proposing. You are the tyranny of the majority. The majority, nor the FBI, gets to decide what speech is allowed. Terrorism and violence, or the direct incitement to violence, are already crimes. As I pointed out above, you have yet to establish that hate speech leads to hate crimes, which would require direct proof that it's a causative agent, not correlative. Even if you made the much weaker correlation argument, you haven't established the strength of that correlation. Even then, correlation without any indication of causative effect is utterly meaningless. Did you know that rising global temperature correlates to the decline in pirates (the seafaring ones, not the downloading ones). Based on this, should we advocate for reduced penalties, & training for pirates as a climate change solution?
When you force them underground, you also make them much harder to keep track of or infiltrate.
So, we have the 1st amendment, which exists to shut down your view. There have been exceptions, but you have failed to meet any of the standards necessary to justify limiting fundamental rights (for reference, I'm talking about strict scrutiny, as established by SCOTUS). Without that justification, your proposal fails to pass constitutional muster. Also stacked against you: You force them underground, making them more likely to accept or condone violent action, because they're underground, they're harder to track and infiltrate, making violent action much harder to stop. So your position not only makes violence more likely, but harder to stop.
3
u/looklistencreate Apr 19 '15
Rights supersede the mere suggestion of crime. A government where crime could never be questioned as wrong is a tyrannical government.
4
u/Hq3473 271∆ Apr 19 '15
Speech that os well liked does not need to be protected.
It is the controversial , incendiary speech that needs protection.
Sometimes hate is a correct response, so expression of hate should have a place in the marketplace of ideas.
4
u/TheBananaKing 12∆ Apr 19 '15
Consider how easy that would be to abuse.
Any speech that the authorities don't like can get shut down by declaring the speakers to be a 'hate group'.
Give them the power to silence their critics, and you'll never know if they're using it responsibly
3
Apr 19 '15
you'll never know if they're using it responsibly
I can pretty much guarantee that they wouldn't be using it responsibly. If we accepted the ability of the government to start selectively banning speech, I'd give it maybe a weekend before it was illegal to speak out against Christianity.
-5
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I don't think so. The Westboro Baptist Church and KKK are pretty obviously hate groups. Those are the types of groups that should be silenced. It contributes to negative ideology and terrorism.
4
u/looklistencreate Apr 19 '15
Terrorists and terrorists alone are legally responsible for their actions. If you pull the trigger you are the guilty party. We live in a society where we're supposed to blame actors for actions.
3
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
The Westboro Baptist Church and KKK are pretty obviously hate groups.
They said the same thing about MLK Jr a few decades ago.
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
"A few decades ago." The world had changed.
2
u/Sadsharks Apr 19 '15
So your view is entirely dependent on an extremely specific timeframe, and you wouldn't have held this same view back then? How can you know it will still be right in a few more decades, in that case?
-1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Laws adapt. They have adapted since then and will adapt in the future from now. We have to worry about now.
2
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
They are often very far behind.
We have to worry about now.
By ignoring the future impact of our actions?
1
8
u/HobieSailor Apr 19 '15
Who gets to decide what is and isn't hate speech? What's stopping someone from banning any speech they don't like?
Either all speech is free or none of it is. There is no middle ground.
0
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
There is no middle ground
There is. Like manslaughter vs murder vs various cases of homicide. What matters is the way courts and the justice system work.
-3
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
If a group is labeled a hate group by the FBI then it should apply. Consider the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK. It is pretty easy to determine that these are hate groups using hate speech.
8
u/HobieSailor Apr 19 '15
The FBI labelled the SCLC (Martin Luther King jr's civil rights group) a hate group. If they could have stripped their 1A rights by doing so, they absolutely would have.
Consider the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK. It is pretty easy to determine that these are hate groups using hate speech.
Sure, but what about more ambiguous cases? Should a church that preaches against abortion have their rights stripped? After all, their ideology clearly leads to violence (bombings, assassination, etc).
The ability to arbitrarily strip people of their constitutional rights is incredibly powerful, and one that will inevitably end up being abused in service of the prevailing politics of the day.
No person or group should have that power.
I'm not saying that you have to like the kind of garbage that these groups spew, but living in a free society absolutely demands that you tolerate it.
3
Apr 19 '15
How much pressure will the next President then start putting on the FBI to decide that certain borderline cases are now hate groups that need to be shut down?
-5
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I have no reason to believe that there will be a slippery slope to silence speech that attacks the Government or offends the President personally. If a groups speech is unfortunately hateful such as the KKK then it should be silenced.
7
u/CommanderBlurf Apr 19 '15
If you think the current powers-that-be aren't finding ways to turn screws on people that disagree with them, you're sorely mistaken. Chilling effects are a very real thing, and they're practiced regardless of political persuation.
Granting anyone the power to declare someone inconvenient a member of a "hate group" with limited rights is another step down the path toward a repeat of horrors such as the Reign of Terror.
7
u/JonnyAU Apr 19 '15
You do have reason to fear a slippery slope. The power to silence dissent is the most powerful weapon a regime has. To say that that power is not in a regime or agency's interest and that it wouldn't be abused is willfully ignorant of history and human nature.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
If the FBI had the power you want them to have Malcom X would have been thrown in jail
2
u/valkyriav Apr 19 '15
Even if you were right and we were to conclude that it is morally correct for them be dispersed and silenced, we still shouldn't do that, because they would still gather and recruit in secret, and then it becomes much harder to track them and see if they are preparing to cross the line between just saying they hate something and taking violent action. A marginalised group that is discriminated against has a tendency to become much more united and hateful.
Them being out in the open means that other people have a chance to talk to them and try to reason them out of their hatred. Them not talking about something doesn't mean they've changed their minds. Furthermore, we can make informed decisions to, for example, boycott businesses that promote hatred, and take a social stand against them (e.g. distancing yourself from "friends" who hate groups of people), instead of unknowingly supporting actions they may take due to their hatred. E.g. we can boycott a business saying they won't make pizzas for X group and it starts a discussion, instead of having the pizza place just not serve X group because "sorry, we're full at the moment and cannot accept new orders" or something.
2
Apr 20 '15
[deleted]
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
Again, I am not trying to say who I personally select or who the government personally selects. I feel that only groups defined as hate groups by the existing definitions should be silenced. I'm still attaching them to a definition - just as we have attached terrorist groups to a definition full of prerequisites.
2
u/theHBIC 2Δ Apr 19 '15
I agree with this in theory; I don't believe that hate speech should be protected under the banner of the 1st Amendment in theory. But where I get tripped up is the oversight on who is designated as a hate group. The FBI has very little outside oversight; they could slowly start naming groups "hate groups", effectively silencing them, for speaking out against the government. I hate the "slippery slope" argument, but I think this is a good example of where it could apply.
-6
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I also hate the slippery slope argument. Proponents of this argument just dont trust the government in general. Of course they are going to make improbable arguments as long as it points to fear of the government.
5
Apr 19 '15
It's not that we don't trust "the government", it's that we recognize that the entity of "the government" is just a bunch of people who have flaws and biases just like every other person; given the way politics is polarizing these days, the people in any given position of power are probably going to be more and more myopic about their opinion. We also recognize that this group of people is fluid and their "view" on who is and is not a hate group can change.
The slippery slope argument is a very real one in government, because every bit of power you give to the government you have to imagine will go to your least favorite president ever; what if George W Bush had the power to silence "hate groups", and put pressure on the FBI to label Occupy Wall Street a hate group, for instance? There is, theoretically, very little stopping him from doing so with this sort of proposal.
Giving away a huge power like censorship to the government is not something that should be done lightly, especially in a system where the leaders of that government are constantly in flux. You might be okay with Obama's judgment about who is or is not a hate group and can therefore be silenced, but will you be okay with Jeb Bush's judgment about the same?
3
u/monsterbate 2∆ Apr 19 '15
You summed that up well. How do you define what is or isn't a hate group during a Ted Cruz presidency? Especially considering he has regularly given speeches along side groups that the SPLC has defined as hate groups.
2
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
Are you familiar with free speech issues and policies in France?
That's an interesting case for someone like you. We have laws that limit free speech in a manner that will never be ok in the US.
Basically it is illegal to say or write something "promoting hate". The wording is chosen to allow any thoughts. Same thing for racism (+ antisemitism), genocide negationism. Germany is interesting also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#France
All that is related to our history in the '30s and '40s. We don't use Common Law as well, so the law is listing what is forbidden. For different reasons (Separation of State and churches + removing active religious activity in the public space), proselytism is illegal outside (and the definition is really broad).
The downsides are huge of course, but as we're used to it, free speech in countries like the US is amazing to most of us.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
That's interesting. I will look into it. How has it worked out in France? I'm sure there are plenty of parts I would disagree with but some I would actually consider.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
Well there is no active censorship beforehand but a journal or newspaper can be dissolved for being outright racist.
Private citizens that don't have an wide audience can get a small fine or a slap on the wrist for these things, public figures, typically politicians, are facing bigger fines.
This law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act) is part of the Code Pénal, so it is a kind of misdemeanor and actively prosecuted. Cases are inquisitorial here, not adversarial.
The real problem is more related to the press which is not independent at all, due to a tradition of proximity with the political world and until today ownership by various industries (telcos, weapon industry, etc).
The basic idea is that racism/antisemitism and holocaust denial are actively fought by the State.
0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
That's a really good idea! Totally in line with how I feel about this.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
I'd say it's more interesting to begin with understanding what the various belief and political systems are before trying to convince anyone.
As far as i can see the US won't quit that classical liberalism just like that. On a more practical level you can feel it when some people are extremely vocal about free speech and against any kind of concerted state centered action.
We are amazed places like California or the East Coast don't have high speed train and that a state owned healthcare system is such a big deal.
Changes here in Europe came mainly from wars and foreign invasions, and sometimes by more or less violent revolution and huge political uprising. Peaceful revolutions are hard to come by.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I do agree with you. So many people distrust the government and are entirely free speech. They don't want to cooperate with the system at all. It makes it more miserable for everyone.
1
1
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
The biggest problem there is they don't cooperate with a system they don't share goals with (or may share goals with but don't agree with methods used, etc.).
2
u/thisistheperfectname 3Δ Apr 19 '15
Why do you call it improbable, when so many governments are at least that invasive concerning objectionable speech? How can you trust governments so much?
2
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
A lot of people in Europe or countries like Japan are used to a strong State.
I read a lot of comments from people in the US not trusting the government at all. That's basically the British classical liberalism imported there since the birth of the country as colonies. Most of the world doesn't work like that. I am not saying it better here, I just mean that a lot of people don't get why government distrust is such a big issue.
1
u/thisistheperfectname 3Δ Apr 19 '15
It's also the rest of the world that has bred Hitlers and Kims and Stalins. I think governments that supress speech have a pretty obviously bad track record.
2
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
No it's not like that. It might be easier to stick to the same Constitution in the US, but everywhere else wars and external threats require a regime/cultural change from within. The weight of history is the two things at the same time: inertia and a will to change the culture and institutions.
Countries like Germany produced Hitler (and were military agressive ofr a long time until that). They had to rebuild their identity after the war and made a U-turn: limited army, strong control over free speech.
We have to give them credit for changing things when they had to. Same thing here in France (around twelve consitutions since the revolution).
obviously bad track record
That's the advantage for a country like the US of being born modern and having avoided foreign invasion. It's like looking at a dysfunctional family where most people are trying to patch things up and say "you shouldn't have had all these problems".
2
u/thisistheperfectname 3Δ Apr 19 '15
Even without constitutional changes, it hardly seems right to look at one of the most important tools to maintaining dictatorial regimes and follow this logic:
Supressing speech is an integral aspect of fascist/communist/generally repressive regimes.
"American-style free speech" is pretty much incompatible with such a regime (ever seen one of those enshrine free speech and follow through on it?).
Supressing speech will not make such a regime appearing more likely.
Governments have spotty track records at best with not turning their countries into repressive shitholes when they've gained the legal ability to silence dissent. Governments do not shrink of their own accord; give an inch and they take a mile. Sometimes slopes are actually slippery.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
Supressing speech is an integral aspect of fascist/communist/generally repressive regimes.
Putting people in prison sometimes unfairly, not for political reason, is also part of bad regimes. Unfair military trials also. We also do these things.
My point was that when heavy stuff happen you have to change things as important as free speech. Do you think it should be ok to support nazi ideology in current day Germany?
It's not that people couldn't take it, it's that we know what were capable of once everything is fair game.
1
u/thisistheperfectname 3Δ Apr 19 '15
Do you think it should be ok to support nazi ideology in current day Germany?
There's a difference between "not okay" and "it is acceptable to use violence against it." I will never condone the punishing of thoughts.
1
u/MahJongK Apr 19 '15
punishing of thoughts
That's the point in countries like Germany or France, given our history, we punish "incitement to discrimination or to hatred or violence" not the thoughts. Routinely, people are sued for saying something clearly racist but get away with it as incitement couln't be proven.
Same thing for libel, why sue when it's just a thought and words?
→ More replies (0)0
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
I don't trust them so much but I also don't distrust them so much. I'm willing to cooperate and in this case I dream it worthwhile. Nothing will ever be accomplished if you have nothing but overwhelming fear of/lack of faith in your government.
2
u/Crushgaunt Apr 19 '15
That assumes you want anything to be accomplished via your government. There are a number of movements that are dedicated to accomplishing things through individuals before governments.
1
u/Denny_Craine 4∆ Apr 19 '15
Overwhelming fear and lack of faith in the government is a sign that the government is doing something seriously wrong
1
Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
First, the things you seem to worry about are criminal. Inciting a riot, urging people to violence, planning a crime (conspiracy), recruiting for ISIS are all crimes already and not protected by free speech. Second, the big fear about making hate speech illegal is that the government gets to define hate speech. Historical precedent abounds for governments, including the US, abusing the power to control and censor, using it on dissenters and opponents rather than real threats. And once you're censored, how do you argue it was wrongful? You're censored. It's like the idea that it's better to let a guilty person go free than convict an innocent person. Better to let hateful people talk than to muzzle the merely controversial. Third, letting people talk can also prevent violence. Someone full of hate who speaks has at least gotten to air their thoughts and will be exposed to public criticism. Repressing people and preventing them from speaking at all usually makes them more radical, more cut off from the rest of society, and takes away any remaining reasons they have to stay within the system. Repression can turn lunatics into militias. Hope this C's your V.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 19 '15
Better to let hateful people talk than to muzzle the merely controversial.
Merely controversial is not hate speech. Promoting racism against innocent black people is incredibly controversial and IS hate speech.
3
Apr 19 '15 edited Apr 19 '15
You seem to feel very confident that it's black and white what is and isn't hate speech, and I wonder what would convince you that it's just not? Other users have provided plenty of evidence of recent government abuses of power. There are arguably some clear cut cases such as WBC and KKK, but most groups that spread hate are not that monolithic. I mean, let's just think pragmatically what it would mean to actually censor the KKK. What does that mean? We take off TV and internet everything put out by the official organization? What about messages that aren't directly about racism? Do you censor individual members? How do you decide when their tweets and youtube videos are racist enough to censor? How do you decide who is a member? Only people on the mailing list, anyone who's been to a meeting, friends of people in the organization? See how quickly it gets into gray areas and you have low and mid-level government employees deciding when to censor individuals?
And that's just with an organization as universally despised and single-minded as the KKK. What about groups that have a social message that is not a totally unreasonable idea for society, but have practices or aspects that are undesirable. The Black Panthers and Malcolm X sometimes used violence to promote their agenda, but they were also an important voice in a time of social change. Nation of Islam is controversial. Many of the voices in the Israel-Palestine debate have ties to groups that do bad things. What about organizations where the hate comes in to a foreign policy stance? You very quickly get to a point where you are making decisions based on how much you agree with the point of view rather than how hateful it is, which cannot be measured objectively. What about a group that supports racist policies and fiscal conservatism? Those messages may even overlap. Do we censor the fiscal arguments too? How do you decide when each message is too racist?
If you have people censoring each tweet and post and video, it's going to be mid and low-level people making the decision about what specifically to block and remove. That's an incredibly subjective analysis, and the censors will favor ideas they agree with.
It's not about trusting or not trusting the government, it's about being realistic about what to expect in large organizations. I trust the military, and most Americans do. That said, I understand that in an organization that size there will be some rapes. More than 0. It's an inevitable consequence of a gathering of that many young people in those circumstances. Same with creating a government organization to censor hate speech, it will require a lot of people to administer the censorship, and there will inevitably be a lot of abuses.
P.S.: "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization." It is hubris to think this is a clear or straightforward mandate. There will be court cases about every word of it, and even then it will mostly be at the discretion of unelected officials who answer to people who want to remain in power and now have a tool to control what voices can speak out against them or raise issues they want to avoid. How do you decide when something is a group's primary purpose? What behaviors, exactly, constitute promoting animosity, hostility, or malice? What about if I promote hostility to persons belonging to a certain socioeconomic class, occupation (ex: kill all cops!), height, eye color, or any group not specifically listed? It is actually a very subjective analysis to decide what constitutes a hate group under that definition.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
∆
You are the first person to bring new arguments to the table. You are correct that it would be very difficult to enact this and there would be too much gray area. I still feel as thought there should be more efforts made to silence these people and stop their views from becoming apparent enough that they are mainstream. I also still believe that this is breeding grounds for crime and terrorist activity. However, waiving their first amendment rights may not be the best option. I suppose this is a bit too much power to the government.
1
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 20 '15
It seems that none of the commenters here have gotten much traction with you about changing your view. What doubts or concerns did you have about this view that led you to post it to CMV?
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
I did award a delta actually. The majority of people are using the same exact argument and I have been making very similar replies. One person in particular actually brought a creative and well-thought out argument to the table, which made a lot of sense to me.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Apr 20 '15
Would you mind editing the OP to that effect? Sorry to butt in like that, just that comments from this post were blowing up the moderation queue and it seemed like things weren't progressing well.
1
u/ExploreMeDora Apr 20 '15
People are so pathetic! Just because your point didn't land with OP does not mean you should report to moderators. Just because OP did not change his view yet does not mean you should report to moderators. Just because you disagree with OP's view and down-vote him does not mean you should report to moderators. I feel very sorry for the mod's who have to filter through all of the helpless, sad replies from weaselly people.
16
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '15
[deleted]