Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Cain]

 

[Foolmewunz]

One group wants whites on top.

The other group wants to be on top of children.

Personally, I'll settle for white equality, not racial discrimination.

Do you live in Zimbabwe?

 

[Kid Eager]

Taking the question at face value:
- it's okay for white supremacists to express their views, as is it okay for a society or group to find their views to be unacceptable and take action to reject the proponents and their views.
- it's not okay for a group (whoever they may be) to advocate taking of illegal activities, as it is not okay for a society or group to provide a platform to advocate those illegal activities.
- over time, the demarcation between what a group or society find acceptable shifts according to changes in demographics, political events, wars, foreign influences, and the economy.
- as a result of the above, the demarcation can sometimes move at different speeds for different parts of a society or different groups - and this becomes the pivot point of the political and ethical friction within society.

 

[Jerrymander]

it's not okay for a group (whoever they may be) to advocate taking of illegal activities, as it is not okay for a society or group to provide a platform to advocate those illegal activities.

NAMBLA doesn't outright tell people to have sex with children. They mostly stick to arguing that kids can actually consent and that consent laws should be changed. Hence the ACLU can defend them on free speech grounds.

 

[Jerrymander]

The questions in sermons are rhetorical. You don't need my answer, and you offer me nothing of value in exchange

You know what the basic question is. If you can't answer it then you have nothing of value for the exchange.

 

[Noztradamus]

Is there really a lot of talk about letting white nationalists have a platform?

It's a slippery slope. We have to crush the idea before it gathers momentum

 

[PhantomWolf]

No way am I taking that bait.

Wow, you're not even willing to go on record as agreeing that sex offenders of children and racists that want to racial cleansing are pretty much at the bottom of the scum bucket together. What is it with people that seem to be too scared to say that such people are vile scum? Because honestly, it seems that only reason not to say you think that they are, is because you don't, and that's a little scary.

 

[Jerrymander]

I don't understand how this relates. Are the white supremacists the people who should be given good faith and the pedophiles be treated as trolls?

 

[dudalb]

Yes,frankly.I don't want to give a bureaucrat the power of deciding what speech should be allowed.

 

[dudalb]

I wonder if you would be so sanguine if you were one of those having to deal with people like Matthew Mills.

But yeah these CT's right to tell people their dead children didn't exist has to be defended no matter what.

Yes. IMHO tolerating Alpha Hotels like Mills is the lesser of two evils,better then giving some government agency the power to determine what speech is allowed and what is not. I don't have your belief in giving the state such power to decide what is permissible speech and what is not.
To me individual freedom is what it is all about. Apparenly you do not value liberty very much,
Now if you want to talk about a private lawsuit, that is a different story.

 

[fuelair]

Just because everyone has is a first amendment allowing free speech, that does not mean that everyone has to provide every stupid, idiotic, lying nutjob with a platform to issue that speech.

Free speech as to the Constitution only means the government cannot control your speech. There are many things out there that you can be arrested for saying. And there are certain specific things you can say that will get you legally arrested for anyway.

 

[fuelair]

A cake shop doesn't have to serve nazi human trash.

And it would taste terrible if they did!!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

The difference is that in certain localities, certain classes of individuals have been officially declared as having specific protections under the law.

Nazi's are not included in any of those classes.

I'm not citing this as support of the pointy-hat club.

As far as the gay-nazi thing goes, Tom of Finland might have a different take on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_of_Finland

And then look at Putin photos. Much similarities there.

 

[Beerina]

We don't all cherish the right to make hate speech.

I cherish denying government the power to censor. That...hasn't worked out so well for humanity. All the bleats to the contrary have zero historical support for any confidence in that position, that it will end any way other than government falling into dictatorship.

Ever, ever, always deny government the tools of tyranny.


This forum is replete with drooling goobers afeared of a Trump dictatorship, yet you stand here with temerity claiming it's OK for government to censor...if The People (whatever the hell that means) really, really want it!

 

[dudalb]

I cherish denying government the power to censor. That...hasn't worked out so well for humanity. All the bleats to the contrary have zero historical support for any confidence in that position, that it will end any way other than government falling into dictatorship.

Ever, ever, always deny government the tools of tyranny.


This forum is replete with drooling goobers afeared of a Trump dictatorship, yet you stand here with temerity claiming it's OK for government to censor...if The People (whatever the hell that means) really, really want it!

For once, we agree.

 

[Beerina]

Thank you.

It isn't, and never has been, about looking fondly on every exercise of garbage barfed out of the mouth of some caveman.

It's always been about denying government, which is to say, a gaggle of power hungry men people, the power to silence their opposition, the people who would stand against them.

 

[Bubba]

For once, we agree.

Wow.

Had no idea thread would go this far.

 

[Beerina]

Is there really a lot of talk about letting white nationalists have a platform?

Sadly, but that's the wrong way to put it. There should be lots of talk about denying government the power to censor, and why that's important.

By trying to talk as if some vile speech somehow has inherent worth, you are playing the game of the censors, who want to empower those with power, with even more power.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

US politics has always been astonishingly accommodating to anti-constitutional movements.
TBH, I don't understand why.

 

[The Don]

Taking the question at face value:
- it's okay for white supremacists to express their views, as is it okay for a society or group to find their views to be unacceptable and take action to reject the proponents and their views.
- it's not okay for a group (whoever they may be) to advocate taking of illegal activities, as it is not okay for a society or group to provide a platform to advocate those illegal activities.- over time, the demarcation between what a group or society find acceptable shifts according to changes in demographics, political events, wars, foreign influences, and the economy.
- as a result of the above, the demarcation can sometimes move at different speeds for different parts of a society or different groups - and this becomes the pivot point of the political and ethical friction within society.

Is this always the case ?

What about groups advocating breaking "unjust" laws - like the laws making homosexuality illegal - as a step towards repealing them ?