Far right hate speech. What should be done?

[Heathen Hammer]

Let me stop you right here. The question is regarding far-right hate speech, not double standards. While your statement is certainly a valid question/observation, it does not address the argument. The argument here being, Is it acceptable to allow hate-speech on social media? Tu Quoque arguments aren't fallacious because they are illogical or aren't good arguments in and of themselves, but because they avoid answering the original question/addressing the original argument.

Any speech is acceptable, aside from easily identifiable calls for immediate violent action.

[mongrel]

I say yes, because not all hate speech is damaging (such as jokes), and there’s alternative and better ways to directly prohibit incitement and harassment etc

So those 'jokes' about killing liberals on Discord prior to Charlottesville and indeed on this forum afterwards are fine with you? Were the convictions of the so-called Sharia Patrols unjust in your view?

Any speech is acceptable, aside from easily identifiable calls for immediate violent action.

So what was that Heather Hayer post of your's about, the one that was excised from the record?


Either way your answers are for people to sit on their arses in the face of incitement or harrassment and the occaisional murder. Not good enough.

[Aexodus]

Either way your answers are for people to sit on their arses in the face of incitement or harrassment and the occaisional murder. Not good enough.

I clearly said there are better ways to prohibit incitement and harassement.

[mongrel]

I clearly said there are better ways to prohibit incitement and harassement.

And I clearly said that the relevant laws are defined thus:

People who use threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening and the intent is to promote hatred against a particular group

How can this be improved on, informing people who use threatening words or language , with the intent to promote hatred against a group that they will be face punishment? Seems like a deterrent to me. It's not rocket science.

I know you could not answer the other question, so I'll put it to you that you would like one rule, a harsher one for Muslim harrassment, another one for fascists.

[Aexodus]

Speech directed at a specific target or group with intent to incite immediate lawless action.

Threatening words is vague, and I don’t like banning words. ’written material that is threatening’ is also vague, and I’m not one for burning books. Not even fascist books.

[mongrel]

Speech directed at a specific target or group with intent to incite immediate lawless action.

Threatening words is vague, and I don’t like banning words. ’written material that is threatening’ is also vague, and I’m not one for burning books. Not even fascist books.

A bit vague you say? Clear enough to most mortal men



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sentence.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8246571.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a3116131.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...p-rosie-cooper

I don’t like banning words

I don't like innocent people being assaulted or killed, or their property damaged. Paweł Adamowicz and Jo Cox would be alive today if hate speech was dealt with effectively. Thats a fact.

[Aexodus]

Three men surrounding someone and physically harrassing them is clearly illegal harassment.

[Love Mountain]

So I'm going to say this just so people know my position on free speech/hate speech. This is my definition explicitly.

1. We must aim to preserve absolute free speech as much as possible.
2. There are times where we must censor speech in the name of public good.

Hate speech censors itself and we only encourage an aura of mystique and conspiracy when we drive such speech underground. Absolute free speech is an essential quality of Western society, a society which I believe is superior to all others on the planet, at least in aggregate. There are certainly places and attitudes that are superior to specific Western norms at the moment. That has nothing to do with skin color, but with cultural values that we currently hold.

Having said that, there are time when we must sacrifice the value of free speech for the sake of the public. We cannot have newspapers freely print slander about a specific person. We cannot allow free speech to violate the privacy of individual citizens. We cannot allow media to be wholly unrestricted in what they do, in what they print, and in what they show. The Government has a moral mandate to preserve public decency in the political arena. They cannot freely use racial slurs for example. The Government, in my view, cannot be the sole determiner of what is or what isn't hate speech. The issue with defining what is or isn't hate speech can be entirely averted if we focus on exposing and cracking down on people who promote violence explicitly and unapologetically. Not because violence is wrong, it often isn't, but because we have to maintain public order and protect the property of private citizens. The only one who should have the power to confiscate private property is the Government.

So while I do not have a moral issue with Antifa beating the out of literal Nazis, I have a problem with a fight occuring when all I'm trying to do is wave my "Socialism Forever" banner. While I don't have a moral issue with storming the White House to drag the orange buffoon out. I have a problem with a riot when I'm trying to be a tourist in D.C. Et cetera. Violence has negative externalities on people who have nothing to do with anything hateful or otherwise. So while I don't particularly give a , I do want the riot police to break it up.

To expand on my "restrictions on the media" section, this is a very complicated topic. We have to balance the media because of moral hazards, not because of political disagreement. Imagine if all Fox News did was hound the private life of Obama, oh right, they used to do that. That's an issue. It violates the basic privacy a human being has, and it also poisons the political discourse. At the same time I am clearly conflicted when it comes to Panama and Paradise papers. On the one hand, such journalism clearly exposes the lies and deception of the 0.01%, on the other hand, they are violating the privacy of those people. I'm siding with the jouranlists here because A) the journalists and their collaborators are now being targeted and assassinated, and B) the ultra wealthy have infinitely more tools to protect themselves that the average citizen simply will never have access to.

[Aexodus]

2. There are times where we must censor speech in the name of public good.

I was 100% with you until you said public good. That is an altar upon which individual rights have historically been sacrificed on industrial scale.

It reminds me of the European article 10.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

This is not what free speech is. It’s always “I support free speech.... buuuut...”

[Love Mountain]

I was 100% with you until you said public good. That is an altar upon which individual rights have historically been sacrificed on industrial scale.

It reminds me of the European article 10.



This is not what free speech is. It’s always “I support free speech.... buuuut...”

There are always limits on free speech. Always. There should be limits on free speech.

For example, a person regularly reveals the position of your troops in an enemy country. The enemy uses this information to kill your country's troops. Should this person's content be taken down in the name of public good?

[Aexodus]

There are always limits on free speech. Always. There should be limits on free speech.

You realise you live in the United States, you have a First Amendment. Are you saying you want to repeal the 1A?

There should be limits on speech, but no limits on free speech.

What you’re talking about would be treason, giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy and knowingly endangering soldiers’ lives. That’s not free speech.

Treason in US law is confined within the protections of free speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a95de213ef5f

We called George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who in the past has handled terrorism cases, to see where that line was drawn.

"Treason is a crime that is often seen more in rhetorical than legal settings," Turley said, very much to the point. "It's one of the few crimes that's mentioned in the Constitution. It generally involves levying war."

"The definition of treason has always been defined narrowly in the United States because it has such great potential for criminalizing political speech and dissent," he said. "The U.S. Courts recognized early that treason was not only narrowly defined historically but had to be confined to be consistent with the First Amendment" and its protection of free speech. So treason, per the Constitution, shall "consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" — which has been interpreted as only including overt acts "showing criminal intent to levy war."

I don’t like using ‘public good’ as a superfluous justification for censorship, as it can be used to criminalise dissent, or blasphemy, as it is in Europe.

[Love Mountain]

You realise you live in the United States, you have a First Amendment. Are you saying you want to repeal the 1A?

There should be limits on speech, but no limits on free speech.

You realize that even in America, we have a lot of limits on free speech, right?

What you’re talking about would be treason, giving aid and/or comfort to the enemy and knowingly endangering soldiers’ lives. That’s not free speech.

Treason in US law is confined within the protections of free speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a95de213ef5f

Fine, then how about if the entire Black Population starts chanting to behead President Trump to institute sharia law in united state, if all of liberal media starts publishing shows and articles advocating for the beheading of President Trump to institute sharia law in the united states, and if Silicon Valley starts using the entirety of social media to advocate for the beheading of President Trump and institution of sharia law in the United States, should we do nothing? And before you say it, incitement of violence has to be imminent, otherwises its considered free speech.

I don’t like using ‘public good’ as a superfluous justification for censorship, as it can be used to criminalize dissent, or blasphemy, as it is in Europe.

So can any limitations on free speech. Tell me, what specific language or term can we use that you would not find arbitrary?

[Pontifex Maximus]

You realize that even in America, we have a lot of limits on free speech, right?

Name 10. Since we have "lots." Just name 10 of them. As an alternative, qualify your statement based upon what you consider to be "lots"

Fine, then how about if the entire Black Population starts chanting to behead President Trump to institute sharia law in united state, if all of liberal media starts publishing shows and articles advocating for the beheading of President Trump to institute sharia law in the united states, and if Silicon Valley starts using the entirety of social media to advocate for the beheading of President Trump and institution of sharia law in the United States, should we do nothing? And before you say it, incitement of violence has to be imminent, otherwises its considered free speech.

As if they haven't? What an awful argument. What about the attempted assassinations of Republican congressmen in the past two years? Oh, no comment?

So can any limitations on free speech. Tell me, what specific language or term can we use that you would not find arbitrary?

Um, how about categorically stopping them? This speech is already limited. This isn't in dispute, anyone who directly calls for violence will be subject to prosecution under criminal statutes. What you fail to bridge is that people can be radicalized for whatever reason towards a certain result. In recent history, this is radicalization of the left towards the right in a terroristic, politically motivated instance. Even Justice White ended up not adhering to principles of unlimited free speech. Your partisan approach to the concept of free speech is the best recommendation to abolish the entire concept since it guarantees to slant the entire process in one direction to the peril of the entire reason why it exists in the first place. You are sabotaging that which you claim to hold dear because people with opinions you disagree with have rights. Yours is the authoritarian argument. If you can't see that then there's no hope for leftists ever having a place in western democracy, and I hope there are enough rational people left to oppose your viewpoints because they actually value freedom.

[Aexodus]

Fine, then how about if the entire Black Population starts chanting to behead President Trump to institute sharia law in united state, if all of liberal media starts publishing shows and articles advocating for the beheading of President Trump to institute sharia law in the united states, and if Silicon Valley starts using the entirety of social media to advocate for the beheading of President Trump and institution of sharia law in the United States, should we do nothing? And before you say it, incitement of violence has to be imminent, otherwises its considered free speech.

Well, yeah that’s free speech. People have already literally done that Sukiyama.

[mongrel]

Well, yeah that’s free speech. People have already literally done that Sukiyama.

So when a Norwegian divulges a plan to commit terrorist acts should Pam Geller

a) tell the authorities?

b) boast about the e-mail on her website?

We know the right answer. Pam chose poorly. Later an attack in Norway cost 77 kids their lives

[Prodromos]

So when a Norwegian divulges a plan to commit terrorist acts should Pam Geller

a) tell the authorities?

b) boast about the e-mail on her website?

We know the right answer. Pam chose poorly. Later an attack in Norway cost 77 kids their lives

Are you claiming Breivik sent that email? What's your evidence for that?

Where does the email say anything about a terrorist attack by the way?

[Love Mountain]

Name 10. Since we have "lots." Just name 10 of them. As an alternative, qualify your statement based upon what you consider to be "lots"

Just 10? You make it too easy.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Virginia v. Hicks (2003)
New York vs Ferber (1982)
United States vs O'Brien (1968)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence (1982)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Roth v. United States (1957)
Defamation Laws
Obscenity Laws
Whitsleblower Laws
Espionage Laws

As if they haven't? What an awful argument. What about the attempted assassinations of Republican congressmen in the past two years? Oh, no comment?

A) People were convicted
B) You didn't answer the question.

Um, how about categorically stopping them? This speech is already limited. This isn't in dispute, anyone who directly calls for violence will be subject to prosecution under criminal statutes. What you fail to bridge is that people can be radicalized for whatever reason towards a certain result. In recent history, this is radicalization of the left towards the right in a terroristic, politically motivated instance. Even Justice White ended up not adhering to principles of unlimited free speech. Your partisan approach to the concept of free speech is the best recommendation to abolish the entire concept since it guarantees to slant the entire process in one direction to the peril of the entire reason why it exists in the first place. You are sabotaging that which you claim to hold dear because people with opinions you disagree with have rights. Yours is the authoritarian argument. If you can't see that then there's no hope for leftists ever having a place in western democracy, and I hope there are enough rational people left to oppose your viewpoints because they actually value freedom.

My approach isn't partisan. I see that you haven't addressed my argument. Tell me, what is this "non-arbitrary" line as to what is covered under freedom of speech and what isn't? It is completely arbitrary, as is evident by the fact that the understanding of the 1st amendment has significantly evolved over time. Otherwise people would be allowed to broadcast whatever they want over the airwaves.

Spoiler: They don't

Well, yeah that’s free speech. People have already literally done that Sukiyama.

"then how about if the entire Black Population starts chanting to behead President Trump to institute sharia law in united state, if all of liberal media starts publishing shows and articles advocating for the beheading of President Trump to institute sharia law in the united states, and if Silicon Valley starts using the entirety of social media to advocate for the beheading of President Trump and institution of sharia law in the United States,"

Show me where it happened.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Just 10? You make it too easy.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)
Virginia v. Hicks (2003)
New York vs Ferber (1982)
United States vs O'Brien (1968)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence (1982)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Roth v. United States (1957)
Defamation Laws
Obscenity Laws
Whitsleblower Laws
Espionage Laws

So you admit that none of these were influenced by Trump or Republicans since 2014? The last four aspects are vague and traditionally subject to state and not federal regulations. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, since it will render any crazy "HURRRR TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT" right where it belongs in the trash can. And I know for sure you'd rather discuss issues, and not just fake news, in determining the issues, so I'm sure you'd be willing to denounce any lazy efforts at undermining his presidency.

[Love Mountain]

So you admit that none of these were influenced by Trump or Republicans since 2014? The last four aspects are vague and traditionally subject to state and not federal regulations. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, since it will render any crazy "HURRRR TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN AGENT" right where it belongs in the trash can. And I know for sure you'd rather discuss issues, and not just fake news, in determining the issues, so I'm sure you'd be willing to denounce any lazy efforts at undermining his presidency.

Stop changing the subject.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Stop changing the subject.

I accept your surrender.