Discussion: Racism - Part 3

[KRYPTON INC.]

It's a bind that has no clear and easy to know path to what is right, and a perfect example of the limits on many levels of hewing to first principles to the Nth degree.

On one hand... free speech is a bedrock ideal our nation has. Look at the TURNER DIARIES or MEIN KAMP. Both I have no love for obviously but I think banning them and burning all copies feels more like the actions of Nazis and White Supremacists. The idea is people have a right to be wrong. Also the concept is similar to our freedom of religion. Instead of having an official American religious creed the founders wanted a marketplace of religious ideologies for citizens to pick and choose from.

On the other hand... We are seeing the outcome of that marketplace of ideas. It's our freedom of speech that's contributed to the rise of Trump's ignorant voters and is also a factor in fermenting the world view of racists through talk radio and the Internet.

Am I saying that Free Speech is bad and advocating curbing it? No.

But we need to also reckon with it helping to contribute to our current situation.

People have a right to be wrong... That doesn't change them being wrong though.

 

[Boy Scout]

I've been thinking that it's simply one of the consequences of living in America. Most can agree that what Nazis stand for is wrong, but we're a nation that encourages people to speak out for what they believe in (within reason, because obviously you can't yell "FIRE" in a movie theater and expect to get away with it). And unfortunately, that applies to people who hold views that most others consider vile.

 

[terry78]

Our values will always be a double edged sword catch 22 type deal. Is what it is.

 

[Wylie Times]

They absolutely should not be allowed to march, give speeches etc. Why is it so hard to understand that they are a hate group - their goal is to subjugate or literally remove racial minorities, LGBTQ, women and other similar disenfranchised populations from the Earth.

I can't believe we are even having this conversation. Our government absolutely should not protect rhetoric that talks about doing harm to those populations.

Hate groups have been marching and holding large rallies since before many of us on this board were born. By the laws of our nation you have to let them march and hold their stupid little rallies. You have to let them do it because you don't want anti-hate groups being shut down because local or even the federal government views THEM as a threat. We've seen it before when the FBI was actively investigating and trying to bring down non violent civil rights groups in the 60's.

I have no problem with them being allowed to march, the idiocy of it all is when they think they should suffer no consequences for openly supporting a movement that's in favor of ethnic and racial cleansing, or the idea that you shouldn't be deemed a bigot just because you chose to surround yourself and pal around with bigots.

The bigger issue is disparate response from local police departments. It's common to see assault rifles and body armor at white supremacist rallies and cops just watch them. Then you look at the #BlackLivesMatter protests and the show of force from police when dealing with unarmed people....there's a clear difference.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

There are some views so abhorrent that if they actually gathered to march (pedophiles?), no one would even bring up free speech. To me Nazism is just about as bad. Stopping people advocating hatred is not infringing on free speech. After all, they are free to be disgusting amongst themselves. But cities should be allowed to say, you'd ain't peddling that crap here.

Nazis whose marches have resulted in the loss of life.

 

[Boy Scout]

We can all agree that those views are disgusting, but again, if these people want to match, that is their right. You can hate what they're saying as much as you want, but if they go about their business peacefully...there's really not anything you can do about it except organize your own counter-protest and make a point to address why their beliefs are fundamentally wrong.

Of course, you could try and prove that they've assembled unlawfully or are disturbing the peace. The latter shouldn't be too hard in such extreme cases.

It sucks, but if you aren't careful about how you limit freedom, you could easily come to see noble protests silenced because they aren't popular in the towns or cities they're being pushed in. It's a very fine line that needs to be carefully considered before it's crossed.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

We can all agree that those views are disgusting, but again, if these people want to match, that is their right. You can hate what they're saying as much as you want, but if they go about their business peacefully...there's really not anything you can do about it except organize your own counter-protest and make a point to address why their beliefs are fundamentally wrong.

Of course, you could try and prove that they've assembled unlawfully or are disturbing the peace. The latter shouldn't be too hard in such extreme cases.

Would you support the 2017 Serial Killer march, where they advocate for their right to murder people? No you wouldn't. When people are sick and twisted, their views aren't to be considered right? Well goddamn actual NAZIS in 2017 should be held in the same contempt. With actual swastika flags. A group that murdered millions. Their flag flying in the United States.

Nope. Can't agree that they deserve that right. There's a reason Germany has outlawed any display of Nazism. Not facism. To me it's pure logic. Some views are the antithesis of life as we know it. The Nazis's right to free speech, resulted in death that could have been avoided if someone said "Nope the KKK and Neo-Nazis can't take to the streets."

 

[Matt]

We can all agree that those views are disgusting, but again, if these people want to match, that is their right. You can hate what they're saying as much as you want, but if they go about their business peacefully...there's really not anything you can do about it except organize your own counter-protest and make a point to address why their beliefs are fundamentally wrong.

Of course, you could try and prove that they've assembled unlawfully or are disturbing the peace. The latter shouldn't be too hard in such extreme cases.

First Amendment is not without limitations. Personally, I am of the mind that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are terror groups and the government can limit the speech/assembly of terror groups.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oh yeah, for sure. What happened in Charlottesville isn't an example of what I'm talking about. But they were being incredibly aggressive about it, waving torches and (apparently) organizing a ****ing militia. If they had simply organized and marched and said what they wanted to say, but unaggressively (however possible that is, considering it's literally hate speech) wouldn't that have fallen under the "free speech" banner?

That is the entire point, they can't do it in an non-aggressive manner. There very nature is aggressive. It is hate speech.

 

[Boy Scout]

Would you support the 2017 Serial Killer march, where they advocate for their right to murder people? No you wouldn't.

It's not a question of what I do or don't support. Americans have the right to assemble and speak out for or against whatever they want, so long as they do it peacefully and (if necessary) go through the proper channels.

"I don't like what you're saying , but I'll defend to the death you right to say it."

When people are sick and twisted, their views aren't to be considered right? Well goddamn actual NAZIS in 2017 should be held in the same contempt.

They ARE held in contempt. But I don't think personal opinion (popular or unpopular) often has anything to do with legal entitlement.

I understand how you feel, and make no mistake, I feel exactly the same way, but if we start allow popular opinion to determine what does or doesn't fall under the "freedom of speech" umbrella, we're gonna open ourselves up to a whole lot of problems.

 

[Boy Scout]

That is the entire point, they can't do it in an non-aggressive manner. There very nature is aggressive. It is hate speech.

I'm sure they can. They just choose not to. And that's what'll bite them in the ass every single time. And if those idiots are gonna shoot themselves in the foot every time they pull the trigger, we don't need to change the law.

Let me just say that I'm disgusted that I have to defend a Nazis right to freedom of speech/assembly. But again, my concern is that enforcing harsher limits on that freedom without very careful consideration can lead to a lot of other problems in the future that I know I'd like to avoid. If we can do it, I'm all for it. I abhor hate speech. I hope I've made that clear.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

I understand how you feel, and make no mistake, I feel exactly the same way, but if we start allow popular opinion to determine what does or doesn't fall under the "freedom of speech" umbrella, we're gonna open ourselves up to a whole lot of problems.

I also understand how you feel. But some views are simply not defensible, and life could be protected by blocking them. There is no slippery slope here. Hate speech literally brings nothing good to society. It helps no one. We've already seen that this kind of speech does, when it's allowed to go through.

I don't agree with flat earthers but they aren't hurting anyone. Nazis are. Allowing people to spread hatred that takes lives? That's just as bad as them IMO.

 

[Matt]

Boy Scout, you're misunderstanding the First. Right off the bat, this isn't an issue of "free speech." It is an issue of free assembly. These are two different rights and have vastly different judicial analysis and limitations. Assembly is is subject to far greater limitation and limitations of assembly can pass constitutional muster with far greater ease due to the public safety concerns present any time there is a large assembly of people (this gives the state a legitimate interest in enforcing certain regulations and safeguards that may infringe on the right to assembly, but the infringement is constitutionally permissible). I don't want to get into a deep dive analysis on the First, but these types of "protests" can be limited without offending the Constitution.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm sure they can. They just choose not to. And that's what'll bite them in the ass every single time. And if those idiots are gonna shoot themselves in the foot every time they pull the trigger, we don't need to change the law.

Let me just say that I'm disgusted that I have to defend a Nazis right to freedom of speech/assembly. But again, my concern is that enforcing harsher limits on that freedom without very careful consideration can lead to a lot of other problems in the future that I know I'd like to avoid. If we can do it, I'm all for it. I abhor hate speech. I hope I've made that clear.

They are neo-Nazis and white-supremacist. How do they march in a non-aggressive manner?

 

[Boy Scout]

First Amendment is not without limitations. Personally, I am of the mind that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are terror groups and the government can limit the speech/assembly of terror groups.

I know it has its limitations (again, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater without expecting consequences), but I wasn't aware of that one in particular. I agree with your assessment that Nazis and white supremacists are terror groups and am all for limiting their speech. Would've suggested that in the first place if I was aware of it. Thanks for the info.

 

[Boy Scout]

They are neo-Nazis and white-supremacist. How do they march in a non-aggressive manner?

The same way any other group does? It's one thing if they're just saying ignorant ****; it's another to act on it and start getting in people's faces, physically assaulting them, etc. If they aren't capable of that, then they wouldn't be protected, and you can shut that **** down.

 

[Boy Scout]

Boy Scout, you're misunderstanding the First. Right off the bat, this isn't an issue of "free speech." It is an issue of free assembly. These are two different rights and have vastly different judicial analysis and limitations. Assembly is is subject to far greater limitation and limitations of assembly can pass constitutional muster with far greater ease due to the public safety concerns present any time there is a large assembly of people (this gives the state a legitimate interest in enforcing certain regulations and safeguards that may infringe on the right to assembly, but the infringement is constitutionally permissible). I don't want to get into a deep dive analysis on the First, but these types of "protests" can be limited without offending the Constitution.

Understood. I thought I might've been crossing some wires. Thank you for the correction.

 

[Sithborg]

I know it has its limitations (again, you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater without expecting consequences), but I wasn't aware of that one in particular. I agree with your assessment that Nazis and white supremacists are terror groups and am all for limiting their speech. Would've suggested that in the first place if I was aware of it. Thanks for the info.

By your understanding, permits would be unconstitutional. I do wonder what the right's reaction would be in attempting to curb weapon possession during these marches.

 

[Boy Scout]

It's clear my understanding was flawed. My apologies to everyone I engaged.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The same way any other group does? It's one thing if they're just saying ignorant ****; it's another to act on it and start getting in people's faces, physically assaulting them, etc. If they aren't capable of that, then they wouldn't be protected, and you can shut that **** down.

Other groups purpose is the the domination of other races. Chant something awful about the Jewish people or put something like that on a sign about black people. How is that not inciting?

You think ISIS supporters can peacefully assemble in the US?

 

[hellified]

Other groups purpose is the the domination of other races. Chant something awful about the Jewish people or put something like that on a sign about black people. How is that not inciting?

You think ISIS supporters can peacefully assemble in the US?

THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION..this crap is selective as hell.

 

[Raiden]

The same way any other group does? It's one thing if they're just saying ignorant ****; it's another to act on it and start getting in people's faces, physically assaulting them, etc. If they aren't capable of that, then they wouldn't be protected, and you can shut that **** down.

You didn't see pictures of those White Supremacists openly carrying assault rifles with bullet proof vest, and a video of 5 of those people beating up on a black man in a parking lot? How can you say that they were peaceful? Not to mention that one of them drove his car into the counter-protesters and killed a woman.

 

[Boy Scout]

I specifically said Charlottesville wasn't an example of what I was talking about. That was in no way peaceful. I was speaking hypothetically the entire time.

 

[mclay18]

Some people are likening the removal of Confederate statues to the plot of 1984.

I mean, really?

 

[Boy Scout]

Too bad books and museums don't exist. That way, that ugly element of our history can be preserved AND properly contexualized so that people know that Confederate soldiers were actually traitors and fought to keep black people in chains.