Problematic Stuff

[Tero]

It’s technically possible to flip in a parliamentary system as well. The ministers and cabinet heads run things day to day and report to the leader. The representatives have to overrule them by passing laws.

The Finnish congress passes a law and it is sent to the president. If the president refuses it, a discussion takes place but a simple majority can pass it unchanged. As long as it does not change the constitution.

[Hermit]

I think loading or tilting the question to refer only to "white supremacists" advocacy for limiting the rights of others renders the question unbalanced and unfair. What of black supremacists? Japanese supremacists (there are such in Japan)?

Let's stick to white supremacists (why the scare quotes, by the way? Do you think they are incorrectly labelled?) until uniformly dressed Blacks or Japanese become an issue by bearing torches and chanting Whites/Gaijin shall not replace us while marching down the street and suggesting that even black/Gaijin citizens should be removed from their country.

I also think phrasing the question "society should support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one thing.

The USA was founded on one thing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And this is what white supremacists want to destroy.

Perhaps they want to legalize murder. Perhaps they want to amend the constitution to give white people greater rights. Yes, they have the right to ADVOCATE and AGITATE for these things. Advocate means to "publicly recommend or support."

And you hope that all we ought to do is talk to the them. Try to "show them the error of their ways to the best of our ability. Challenge their ideas. Change thought. Provoke change by intelligent debate". Worked well with the brownshirts, didn't it? And if today's ragtag of white supremacists gets united and organised into an irresistible force by a charismatic leader, slavery is reinstituted, other no-Caucasian citizens driven out of the country or housed in concentration camps, what then? "Oh, we tried our best?" I put it to you, letting white supremacists who actively work to destroy the unalienable rights of all citizens to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness under the protection of law is not worth the risk of having them succeed.

the white supremacists are and I think should be free to campaign to arouse public concern about any issue in the hope of prompting action. Whatever nonsense they want, they should be able to publish (in whatever publication will have them, or whatever publication they create), stand on soapboxes, march in the street, sing songs, carry signs, whatever.

See above.

The distinction is between advocacy and agitation, vs. illegal or violent action. They can't hit people or threaten people with injury or death

By the time they do that, it may well be too late to stop them. We have a historical precedent for that.

[Forty Two]

I think loading or tilting the question to refer only to "white supremacists" advocacy for limiting the rights of others renders the question unbalanced and unfair. What of black supremacists? Japanese supremacists (there are such in Japan)?

Let's stick to white supremacists (why the scare quotes, by the way? Do you think they are incorrectly labelled?) until uniformly dressed Blacks or Japanese become an issue by bearing torches and chanting Whites/Gaijin shall not replace us while marching down the street and suggesting that even black/Gaijin citizens should be removed from their country.

Rights are individual, not collective. So, whether someone can say "X shall not replace us," while carrying a torch and suggesting X be removed from the country is either allowed or it isn't. It's not allowed for one person and disallowed for another based on how important one thinks their movement is.

This does seem to be a fundamental difference of view we have on this issue. I view the right of free speech as an individual right, and based on your suggestion that we not concern ourselves with black supremacists until their movement reaches a certain level of seriousness (in whose view?) you think there is some collective aspect to this, where free speech for large groups of assholes saying assholey things is different from free speech for individual or small groups of assholes saying assholey things.

I also think phrasing the question "society should support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one thing.

The USA was founded on one thing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And this is what white supremacists want to destroy.

It's not unlawful or unconstitution to want to destroy the declaration of independence (which does not have force of law), or to oppose these unalienable rights. People do it here, some of whom are Americans. They say there are no such things as "rights" which are a myth, and it's backwards thinking, etc. Surely, in a free society, one may take issue with (a) the existence of a Creator and what it (if it exists) endows, (b) whether there are rights at all, and whether these rights include Life, Liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and what the extent of those rights are, if they even exist.

I.e., it's perfectly allowable in a free society to want to destroy or to oppose "rights." Isn't it? Or, are Americans here who declare there are no things called rights and there was no Creator and nobody endowed anybody with anything -- should they not be allowed to do that? Or just alt righties? Alt righties can't, but non-alt-righties who think those things can say what they like?

Perhaps they want to legalize murder. Perhaps they want to amend the constitution to give white people greater rights. Yes, they have the right to ADVOCATE and AGITATE for these things. Advocate means to "publicly recommend or support."

And you hope that all we ought to do is talk to the them.

Doesn't matter what you want to do.
You can talk to them or not. Their right to talk is not dependent on what you think about what they say, or whether you feel like addressing it. Neither does your right. There are things you believe that probably repulse large parts of the population. Doesn't matter what "we" want to do about your views, either.

Try to "show them the error of their ways to the best of our ability. Challenge their ideas. Change thought. Provoke change by intelligent debate". Worked well with the brownshirts, didn't it?

Whenever a person takes violent action, they need to be prosecuted, and people they attack have a right of self defense. However, it's not permissible to treat someone saying "X will not replace us" and marching down the street as equivalent to Brownshirts. Maybe X is trying to replace them? Ever think of that? You say X is trying to replace others -- you say the whites are trying to replace the non-whites -- well, maybe non-whites are trying to replace whites (in some instances). Both could be true at the same time.

And if today's ragtag of white supremacists gets united and organised into an irresistible force by a charismatic leader, slavery is reinstituted, other no-Caucasian citizens driven out of the country or housed in concentration camps, what then? "Oh, we tried our best?" I put it to you, letting white supremacists who actively work to destroy the unalienable rights of all citizens to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness under the protection of law is not worth the risk of having them succeed.

You believe that people walking down the street saying X will not replace us, and saying things that you believe mean kicking X out of the country, and carrying torches -- you think that means they want slavery and "noncaucasian citizens" driven out of the county and housed in concentration camps. That's not what they say they mean. If a group of people is taking action to try to enslave people (any overt act toward that goal), or to take any overt act toward driving a citizen out of the country or housing someone in a concentration camp, then they are guilty of a crime. However, even if they literally "talk" about committing a crime, it's not criminal. It's like people talking about making guns illegal - that's advocacy of taking away a constitutional right. So what? It's allowed to be talked about. You might find a difference in the kind of right protected, and you might think one is more important than the other - and you're entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else who disagrees with you.

the white supremacists are and I think should be free to campaign to arouse public concern about any issue in the hope of prompting action. Whatever nonsense they want, they should be able to publish (in whatever publication will have them, or whatever publication they create), stand on soapboxes, march in the street, sing songs, carry signs, whatever.

See above.

In a free society, people with unpopular and even evil opinion get to march and carry signs and such. Satanists. Communists. People who want to limit free speech. People who want to eliminate abortion rights. People who want to eliminate gun rights. People who want to end all immigration or end some immigration or who oppose only illegal immigration. People who want to ban religion. People who want to ban creationism, intelligent design, or evolutionary biology. They all get to talk, sing songs, carry signs, write pamphlets, have blogs, and web pages and the like. Alt right and white supremacists, too. Many alt righters say they're not white supremacists anyway.

Like I said above - rights are individual, not group. The law cannot simply declare that alt righters have not right to express their views, as there is no uniformly agreed upon definition of what alt right means. Most alt righters would say they're not racist. Many on the left are sure they are. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. What they're allowed to say is individual, not a group issue.

The distinction is between advocacy and agitation, vs. illegal or violent action. They can't hit people or threaten people with injury or death

By the time they do that, it may well be too late to stop them. We have a historical precedent for that.

Nonsense. The historical precedent is that more free speech means a freer society - a liberal society. The historical precedent is that state imposed orthodoxy on thought and speech is what creates the very oppression you seek to oppose. You would vest in the State the power to determine what political and social views people can express in public. All it takes at that point is for the State to be controlled by people who hold the views you oppose -- then they have the monopoly power of the State to silence their opposition, and they have the constitutional machinery to do it. If, however, the constitutional foundation of the State is that it must be neutral on matters of political thought and expression, and that it has the obligaton to defend the rights of Communists and alt righters alike to say what they want -- then it makes it far more difficult for the State to do create the oppression you fear.

Plus, shining the light of truth on the awful assholes is the best way for evil views to be silenced. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You want something to grow, bury it in the ground.

One difference in a liberal view such as mine and a reactionary one such as yours (on this issue) is that my foundational principle is that people are good, and tend not to see reason when presented it. Look at how an entire generation accepted gay marriage almost overnight. In a country where ideas that are threatening to society can be silenced by the State, that would be much harder. It's in the free countries of the West where that fundamental change happened in about one generation. We went from the State jailing gays, to sending them to psychiatrists, to openly accepting them in a short period of time - even when some were saying that expression of pro-gay rights views would destroy our children and our families, and the very fabric of our society. But, they were allowed to express their views, even to say that something illegal should be allowed. And, they won, because people saw the light, saw reason. Give the State the power to say "no - you will not talk about that" and you will not get that kind of change.

The historical precedent is that it is the liberal west - the countries that created the ideas - born of the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason - that human beings have rights to their own thoughts and opinions, and the right to express them freely -- It was those countries that abolished slavery - it is those countries that created freedom of (and from) religion -- it was those countries that have not succumbed to totalitarianism.

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like lambs to the slaughter." - George Washington.

"Take away freedom of speech, and the creative faculties dry up." - George Orwell.

"If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky.

The case of Brandenburg v Ohio, US Supreme Court (1969) is instructive, and under that case, the advocacy of things like "Jews will not replace us" or "whoever will not replace us" - carrying torches and marching, and advocating that people be kicked out of the country, would be considered clearly within the freedom of speech. As summarized in wikipedia, "Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made..." Sounds more extreme than what happened in Charlottesville. The Supreme Court found that advocacy of illegal activities and even the advocacy of violence in general is free speech, as is biased speech like racial namecalling.

Brandenburg was the victory over the reactionary forces that were and are anti-free speech. In a prior case in 1951, Dennis v US, the then more reactionary/conservative Supreme Court ruled that a prosecution of Communist Party members for organizing a meeting at which they intended to talk about revolutionary ideas and the overthrow of the government was unlawful under the Smith Act and it was not a violation of free speech rights (even though no overt action had been taken toward the overthrow of the government). A spirited dissent by Hugo Black ultimately won the day when the Court decided Yates v. United States which ruled that the State may not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. Later, Brandenburg v. Ohio case held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech.

Thus, Brandenburg not only protects the far right, but it protects the far left, and I'm glad it does. Communists should be allowed to meet and hold their talks and marches about overthrowing the current society and government, even where that overthrow would involve the advocacy of violence. They should be allowed to extoll the merits of "punching Nazis," even where some people might actually go punch people they think (wrongly or rightly) are Nazis. That's a good thing. That's what protects antifa - bunch of fuckdouche communists who want to "overthrow" capitalism and our so-called fascist government. They advocate violence in general, show up to rallies in masks and aggressively hurl insults, epithets and hateful rhetoric at their opposition. However, until they start hitting people with bike locks, or throwing bottles or breaking windows or setting fires, they are within their rights to do so.

The right of free speech protects them, even though we run the risk that the far left assholes might well become very popular and impose their horrid, awful, society-destroying ideology on the people. It's far better to leave opposition to their awfulness to the liberty of a free people to oppose their scumbagness, rather than to empower the State to silence them under rubric of national security, protection of society or protection of people from supposed injury caused by their espousing of awful ideas.

[Forty Two]

Trump is trying to fuck the environment, but local authorities are ignoring him in places...why, given the left leaning nature of the west coast can't they ignore him too?

They have no excuse, do they?

I'm not sure about your laws, but perhaps if a state banned a given pesticide, the company making it could more easily fight the ban in court than if it were a federal ban?

In the US, the states can ban pesticides, even if the federal government doesn't. For the federal government to ban something, it has to base its action on a federal power - typically that's the "interstate commerce clause" which empowers the federal government to make laws about "interstate" commerce, but it cannot make laws about "intrastate" commerce. That power has been broadly interpreted by the courts, as almost everything impacts "interstate" commerce, so unless it's something that is wholly within a single state, it's generally open to federal regulation. But, that's not exclusive power - the states can regulate things within their borders even if it touches on interstate commerce....

...except...if the federal government does make a law in an arena where they have the power to do so, then that law takes priority under the supremacy clause of the constitution, and a state law can be "more restrictive" but cannot be "less restrictive" than a federal law on the issue. So, like, states can make higher minimum wage for businesses engaged in interstate commerce, but they cannot lower it. Federal minimum is like $7.25 an hour and some states have higher minimums. That's allowed.

But, in general, a state could ban, say, Round-up, if it wanted to. The federal government would not be able to say that states could not ban it, unless the state was violating some constitutional provision applicable to it, like due process or equal protection of the laws. But, commercial regulations are pretty much never found to be unconstitutional. States have general police and welfare powers, so if the legislature passes it, and it's within the powers of the state consitution, and it doesn't violate some fundamental right, then it's constitutional.

[Forty Two]

Not sure where to put this.

There's an obvious difference in the two questions. It's not the same thing at all for someone 6 generations ago to steal something, and then to say that it should be given to someone who is 6 generations later. Person A steals from person B and gives it to person C, C might have an obligation to give it back to person A. However, that does not translate to C's great great great great great grandchildren having to pay money to A's great great great great great grandchildren. They aren't the same people.

[Hermit]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

I think loading or tilting the question to refer only to "white supremacists" advocacy for limiting the rights of others renders the question unbalanced and unfair. What of black supremacists? Japanese supremacists (there are such in Japan)?

Let's stick to white supremacists (why the scare quotes, by the way? Do you think they are incorrectly labelled?) until uniformly dressed Blacks or Japanese become an issue by bearing torches and chanting Whites/Gaijin shall not replace us while marching down the street and suggesting that even black/Gaijin citizens should be removed from their country.

Rights are individual, not collective. So, whether someone can say "X shall not replace us," while carrying a torch and suggesting X be removed from the country is either allowed or it isn't. It's not allowed for one person and disallowed for another based on how important one thinks their movement is.

This does seem to be a fundamental difference of view we have on this issue. I view the right of free speech as an individual right, and based on your suggestion that we not concern ourselves with black supremacists until their movement reaches a certain level of seriousness (in whose view?) you think there is some collective aspect to this, where free speech for large groups of assholes saying assholey things is different from free speech for individual or small groups of assholes saying assholey things.

I also think phrasing the question "society should support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one thing.

The USA was founded on one thing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And this is what white supremacists want to destroy.

It's not unlawful or unconstitution to want to destroy the declaration of independence (which does not have force of law), or to oppose these unalienable rights. People do it here, some of whom are Americans. They say there are no such things as "rights" which are a myth, and it's backwards thinking, etc. Surely, in a free society, one may take issue with (a) the existence of a Creator and what it (if it exists) endows, (b) whether there are rights at all, and whether these rights include Life, Liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and what the extent of those rights are, if they even exist.

I.e., it's perfectly allowable in a free society to want to destroy or to oppose "rights." Isn't it? Or, are Americans here who declare there are no things called rights and there was no Creator and nobody endowed anybody with anything -- should they not be allowed to do that? Or just alt righties? Alt righties can't, but non-alt-righties who think those things can say what they like?

Perhaps they want to legalize murder. Perhaps they want to amend the constitution to give white people greater rights. Yes, they have the right to ADVOCATE and AGITATE for these things. Advocate means to "publicly recommend or support."

And you hope that all we ought to do is talk to the them.

Doesn't matter what you want to do.
You can talk to them or not. Their right to talk is not dependent on what you think about what they say, or whether you feel like addressing it. Neither does your right. There are things you believe that probably repulse large parts of the population. Doesn't matter what "we" want to do about your views, either.

Try to "show them the error of their ways to the best of our ability. Challenge their ideas. Change thought. Provoke change by intelligent debate". Worked well with the brownshirts, didn't it?

Whenever a person takes violent action, they need to be prosecuted, and people they attack have a right of self defense. However, it's not permissible to treat someone saying "X will not replace us" and marching down the street as equivalent to Brownshirts. Maybe X is trying to replace them? Ever think of that? You say X is trying to replace others -- you say the whites are trying to replace the non-whites -- well, maybe non-whites are trying to replace whites (in some instances). Both could be true at the same time.

And if today's ragtag of white supremacists gets united and organised into an irresistible force by a charismatic leader, slavery is reinstituted, other no-Caucasian citizens driven out of the country or housed in concentration camps, what then? "Oh, we tried our best?" I put it to you, letting white supremacists who actively work to destroy the unalienable rights of all citizens to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness under the protection of law is not worth the risk of having them succeed.

You believe that people walking down the street saying X will not replace us, and saying things that you believe mean kicking X out of the country, and carrying torches -- you think that means they want slavery and "noncaucasian citizens" driven out of the county and housed in concentration camps. That's not what they say they mean. If a group of people is taking action to try to enslave people (any overt act toward that goal), or to take any overt act toward driving a citizen out of the country or housing someone in a concentration camp, then they are guilty of a crime. However, even if they literally "talk" about committing a crime, it's not criminal. It's like people talking about making guns illegal - that's advocacy of taking away a constitutional right. So what? It's allowed to be talked about. You might find a difference in the kind of right protected, and you might think one is more important than the other - and you're entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else who disagrees with you.

the white supremacists are and I think should be free to campaign to arouse public concern about any issue in the hope of prompting action. Whatever nonsense they want, they should be able to publish (in whatever publication will have them, or whatever publication they create), stand on soapboxes, march in the street, sing songs, carry signs, whatever.

See above.

In a free society, people with unpopular and even evil opinion get to march and carry signs and such. Satanists. Communists. People who want to limit free speech. People who want to eliminate abortion rights. People who want to eliminate gun rights. People who want to end all immigration or end some immigration or who oppose only illegal immigration. People who want to ban religion. People who want to ban creationism, intelligent design, or evolutionary biology. They all get to talk, sing songs, carry signs, write pamphlets, have blogs, and web pages and the like. Alt right and white supremacists, too. Many alt righters say they're not white supremacists anyway.

Like I said above - rights are individual, not group. The law cannot simply declare that alt righters have not right to express their views, as there is no uniformly agreed upon definition of what alt right means. Most alt righters would say they're not racist. Many on the left are sure they are. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. What they're allowed to say is individual, not a group issue.

The distinction is between advocacy and agitation, vs. illegal or violent action. They can't hit people or threaten people with injury or death

By the time they do that, it may well be too late to stop them. We have a historical precedent for that.

Nonsense. The historical precedent is that more free speech means a freer society - a liberal society. The historical precedent is that state imposed orthodoxy on thought and speech is what creates the very oppression you seek to oppose. You would vest in the State the power to determine what political and social views people can express in public. All it takes at that point is for the State to be controlled by people who hold the views you oppose -- then they have the monopoly power of the State to silence their opposition, and they have the constitutional machinery to do it. If, however, the constitutional foundation of the State is that it must be neutral on matters of political thought and expression, and that it has the obligaton to defend the rights of Communists and alt righters alike to say what they want -- then it makes it far more difficult for the State to do create the oppression you fear.

Plus, shining the light of truth on the awful assholes is the best way for evil views to be silenced. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You want something to grow, bury it in the ground.

One difference in a liberal view such as mine and a reactionary one such as yours (on this issue) is that my foundational principle is that people are good, and tend not to see reason when presented it. Look at how an entire generation accepted gay marriage almost overnight. In a country where ideas that are threatening to society can be silenced by the State, that would be much harder. It's in the free countries of the West where that fundamental change happened in about one generation. We went from the State jailing gays, to sending them to psychiatrists, to openly accepting them in a short period of time - even when some were saying that expression of pro-gay rights views would destroy our children and our families, and the very fabric of our society. But, they were allowed to express their views, even to say that something illegal should be allowed. And, they won, because people saw the light, saw reason. Give the State the power to say "no - you will not talk about that" and you will not get that kind of change.

The historical precedent is that it is the liberal west - the countries that created the ideas - born of the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason - that human beings have rights to their own thoughts and opinions, and the right to express them freely -- It was those countries that abolished slavery - it is those countries that created freedom of (and from) religion -- it was those countries that have not succumbed to totalitarianism.

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like lambs to the slaughter." - George Washington.

"Take away freedom of speech, and the creative faculties dry up." - George Orwell.

"If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky.

The case of Brandenburg v Ohio, US Supreme Court (1969) is instructive, and under that case, the advocacy of things like "Jews will not replace us" or "whoever will not replace us" - carrying torches and marching, and advocating that people be kicked out of the country, would be considered clearly within the freedom of speech. As summarized in wikipedia, "Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made..." Sounds more extreme than what happened in Charlottesville. The Supreme Court found that advocacy of illegal activities and even the advocacy of violence in general is free speech, as is biased speech like racial namecalling.

Brandenburg was the victory over the reactionary forces that were and are anti-free speech. In a prior case in 1951, Dennis v US, the then more reactionary/conservative Supreme Court ruled that a prosecution of Communist Party members for organizing a meeting at which they intended to talk about revolutionary ideas and the overthrow of the government was unlawful under the Smith Act and it was not a violation of free speech rights (even though no overt action had been taken toward the overthrow of the government). A spirited dissent by Hugo Black ultimately won the day when the Court decided Yates v. United States which ruled that the State may not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. Later, Brandenburg v. Ohio case held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech.

Thus, Brandenburg not only protects the far right, but it protects the far left, and I'm glad it does. Communists should be allowed to meet and hold their talks and marches about overthrowing the current society and government, even where that overthrow would involve the advocacy of violence. They should be allowed to extoll the merits of "punching Nazis," even where some people might actually go punch people they think (wrongly or rightly) are Nazis. That's a good thing. That's what protects antifa - bunch of fuckdouche communists who want to "overthrow" capitalism and our so-called fascist government. They advocate violence in general, show up to rallies in masks and aggressively hurl insults, epithets and hateful rhetoric at their opposition. However, until they start hitting people with bike locks, or throwing bottles or breaking windows or setting fires, they are within their rights to do so.

The right of free speech protects them, even though we run the risk that the far left assholes might well become very popular and impose their horrid, awful, society-destroying ideology on the people. It's far better to leave opposition to their awfulness to the liberty of a free people to oppose their scumbagness, rather than to empower the State to silence them under rubric of national security, protection of society or protection of people from supposed injury caused by their espousing of awful ideas.

Your first sentence indicated another avalanche of sophistry was commencing. When white supremacists announce their intention to trample over the rights of others "Rights are individual, not collective." is utter crap. Cya later. I'm taking a break from reading bullshit.

[Seabass]

[Seabass]

I blame black supremacists. If only those shifty blacks would stop their identity politicking, I'm sure the whites would stop identity politicking too.

Actor Ving Rhames says police held him at gunpoint in his own home
Pulp Fiction star tells Sirius XM neighbor called 911 and said large black man was breaking into the house
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... point-home

Ving Rhames was held at gunpoint by police officers in his home after a neighbor reported that a “large black man” had broken in, the actor said on Friday.

“I open the door and there is a red dot pointed at my face from a 9mm [handgun],” the star of Mission: Impossible, Pulp Fiction and other films said on the Clay Cane show on Sirius XM. “They say, ‘Put up your hands’.”

Rhames said the confrontation happened earlier this year and was defused quickly when the police chief recognized him.

“He said it was a mistake and apologized,” the actor said, adding that he was still shaken. “My problem is, and I said this to them, what if it was my son and he had a video game remote or something and you thought it was a gun?”

Rhames said police told him a neighbor had called 911 and said a large black man was breaking into the house.

[Seabass]

Even the attorney who defended George Zimmerman thinks the shooter is guilty because the shootee was clearly backing away.

[Seabass]

[Forty Two]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

I think loading or tilting the question to refer only to "white supremacists" advocacy for limiting the rights of others renders the question unbalanced and unfair. What of black supremacists? Japanese supremacists (there are such in Japan)?

Let's stick to white supremacists (why the scare quotes, by the way? Do you think they are incorrectly labelled?) until uniformly dressed Blacks or Japanese become an issue by bearing torches and chanting Whites/Gaijin shall not replace us while marching down the street and suggesting that even black/Gaijin citizens should be removed from their country.

Rights are individual, not collective. So, whether someone can say "X shall not replace us," while carrying a torch and suggesting X be removed from the country is either allowed or it isn't. It's not allowed for one person and disallowed for another based on how important one thinks their movement is.

This does seem to be a fundamental difference of view we have on this issue. I view the right of free speech as an individual right, and based on your suggestion that we not concern ourselves with black supremacists until their movement reaches a certain level of seriousness (in whose view?) you think there is some collective aspect to this, where free speech for large groups of assholes saying assholey things is different from free speech for individual or small groups of assholes saying assholey things.

I also think phrasing the question "society should support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one thing.

The USA was founded on one thing:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And this is what white supremacists want to destroy.

It's not unlawful or unconstitution to want to destroy the declaration of independence (which does not have force of law), or to oppose these unalienable rights. People do it here, some of whom are Americans. They say there are no such things as "rights" which are a myth, and it's backwards thinking, etc. Surely, in a free society, one may take issue with (a) the existence of a Creator and what it (if it exists) endows, (b) whether there are rights at all, and whether these rights include Life, Liberty or the pursuit of happiness, and what the extent of those rights are, if they even exist.

I.e., it's perfectly allowable in a free society to want to destroy or to oppose "rights." Isn't it? Or, are Americans here who declare there are no things called rights and there was no Creator and nobody endowed anybody with anything -- should they not be allowed to do that? Or just alt righties? Alt righties can't, but non-alt-righties who think those things can say what they like?

Perhaps they want to legalize murder. Perhaps they want to amend the constitution to give white people greater rights. Yes, they have the right to ADVOCATE and AGITATE for these things. Advocate means to "publicly recommend or support."

And you hope that all we ought to do is talk to the them.

Doesn't matter what you want to do.
You can talk to them or not. Their right to talk is not dependent on what you think about what they say, or whether you feel like addressing it. Neither does your right. There are things you believe that probably repulse large parts of the population. Doesn't matter what "we" want to do about your views, either.

Try to "show them the error of their ways to the best of our ability. Challenge their ideas. Change thought. Provoke change by intelligent debate". Worked well with the brownshirts, didn't it?

Whenever a person takes violent action, they need to be prosecuted, and people they attack have a right of self defense. However, it's not permissible to treat someone saying "X will not replace us" and marching down the street as equivalent to Brownshirts. Maybe X is trying to replace them? Ever think of that? You say X is trying to replace others -- you say the whites are trying to replace the non-whites -- well, maybe non-whites are trying to replace whites (in some instances). Both could be true at the same time.

And if today's ragtag of white supremacists gets united and organised into an irresistible force by a charismatic leader, slavery is reinstituted, other no-Caucasian citizens driven out of the country or housed in concentration camps, what then? "Oh, we tried our best?" I put it to you, letting white supremacists who actively work to destroy the unalienable rights of all citizens to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness under the protection of law is not worth the risk of having them succeed.

You believe that people walking down the street saying X will not replace us, and saying things that you believe mean kicking X out of the country, and carrying torches -- you think that means they want slavery and "noncaucasian citizens" driven out of the county and housed in concentration camps. That's not what they say they mean. If a group of people is taking action to try to enslave people (any overt act toward that goal), or to take any overt act toward driving a citizen out of the country or housing someone in a concentration camp, then they are guilty of a crime. However, even if they literally "talk" about committing a crime, it's not criminal. It's like people talking about making guns illegal - that's advocacy of taking away a constitutional right. So what? It's allowed to be talked about. You might find a difference in the kind of right protected, and you might think one is more important than the other - and you're entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else who disagrees with you.

the white supremacists are and I think should be free to campaign to arouse public concern about any issue in the hope of prompting action. Whatever nonsense they want, they should be able to publish (in whatever publication will have them, or whatever publication they create), stand on soapboxes, march in the street, sing songs, carry signs, whatever.

See above.

In a free society, people with unpopular and even evil opinion get to march and carry signs and such. Satanists. Communists. People who want to limit free speech. People who want to eliminate abortion rights. People who want to eliminate gun rights. People who want to end all immigration or end some immigration or who oppose only illegal immigration. People who want to ban religion. People who want to ban creationism, intelligent design, or evolutionary biology. They all get to talk, sing songs, carry signs, write pamphlets, have blogs, and web pages and the like. Alt right and white supremacists, too. Many alt righters say they're not white supremacists anyway.

Like I said above - rights are individual, not group. The law cannot simply declare that alt righters have not right to express their views, as there is no uniformly agreed upon definition of what alt right means. Most alt righters would say they're not racist. Many on the left are sure they are. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. What they're allowed to say is individual, not a group issue.

The distinction is between advocacy and agitation, vs. illegal or violent action. They can't hit people or threaten people with injury or death

By the time they do that, it may well be too late to stop them. We have a historical precedent for that.

Nonsense. The historical precedent is that more free speech means a freer society - a liberal society. The historical precedent is that state imposed orthodoxy on thought and speech is what creates the very oppression you seek to oppose. You would vest in the State the power to determine what political and social views people can express in public. All it takes at that point is for the State to be controlled by people who hold the views you oppose -- then they have the monopoly power of the State to silence their opposition, and they have the constitutional machinery to do it. If, however, the constitutional foundation of the State is that it must be neutral on matters of political thought and expression, and that it has the obligaton to defend the rights of Communists and alt righters alike to say what they want -- then it makes it far more difficult for the State to do create the oppression you fear.

Plus, shining the light of truth on the awful assholes is the best way for evil views to be silenced. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. You want something to grow, bury it in the ground.

One difference in a liberal view such as mine and a reactionary one such as yours (on this issue) is that my foundational principle is that people are good, and tend not to see reason when presented it. Look at how an entire generation accepted gay marriage almost overnight. In a country where ideas that are threatening to society can be silenced by the State, that would be much harder. It's in the free countries of the West where that fundamental change happened in about one generation. We went from the State jailing gays, to sending them to psychiatrists, to openly accepting them in a short period of time - even when some were saying that expression of pro-gay rights views would destroy our children and our families, and the very fabric of our society. But, they were allowed to express their views, even to say that something illegal should be allowed. And, they won, because people saw the light, saw reason. Give the State the power to say "no - you will not talk about that" and you will not get that kind of change.

The historical precedent is that it is the liberal west - the countries that created the ideas - born of the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason - that human beings have rights to their own thoughts and opinions, and the right to express them freely -- It was those countries that abolished slavery - it is those countries that created freedom of (and from) religion -- it was those countries that have not succumbed to totalitarianism.

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we will be led, like lambs to the slaughter." - George Washington.

"Take away freedom of speech, and the creative faculties dry up." - George Orwell.

"If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky.

The case of Brandenburg v Ohio, US Supreme Court (1969) is instructive, and under that case, the advocacy of things like "Jews will not replace us" or "whoever will not replace us" - carrying torches and marching, and advocating that people be kicked out of the country, would be considered clearly within the freedom of speech. As summarized in wikipedia, "Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic] against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them. One of the speeches also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the Fourth of July. Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made..." Sounds more extreme than what happened in Charlottesville. The Supreme Court found that advocacy of illegal activities and even the advocacy of violence in general is free speech, as is biased speech like racial namecalling.

Brandenburg was the victory over the reactionary forces that were and are anti-free speech. In a prior case in 1951, Dennis v US, the then more reactionary/conservative Supreme Court ruled that a prosecution of Communist Party members for organizing a meeting at which they intended to talk about revolutionary ideas and the overthrow of the government was unlawful under the Smith Act and it was not a violation of free speech rights (even though no overt action had been taken toward the overthrow of the government). A spirited dissent by Hugo Black ultimately won the day when the Court decided Yates v. United States which ruled that the State may not prohibit advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine. Later, Brandenburg v. Ohio case held that "mere advocacy" of violence was per se protected speech.

Thus, Brandenburg not only protects the far right, but it protects the far left, and I'm glad it does. Communists should be allowed to meet and hold their talks and marches about overthrowing the current society and government, even where that overthrow would involve the advocacy of violence. They should be allowed to extoll the merits of "punching Nazis," even where some people might actually go punch people they think (wrongly or rightly) are Nazis. That's a good thing. That's what protects antifa - bunch of fuckdouche communists who want to "overthrow" capitalism and our so-called fascist government. They advocate violence in general, show up to rallies in masks and aggressively hurl insults, epithets and hateful rhetoric at their opposition. However, until they start hitting people with bike locks, or throwing bottles or breaking windows or setting fires, they are within their rights to do so.

The right of free speech protects them, even though we run the risk that the far left assholes might well become very popular and impose their horrid, awful, society-destroying ideology on the people. It's far better to leave opposition to their awfulness to the liberty of a free people to oppose their scumbagness, rather than to empower the State to silence them under rubric of national security, protection of society or protection of people from supposed injury caused by their espousing of awful ideas.

Your first sentence indicated another avalanche of sophistry was commencing. When white supremacists announce their intention to trample over the rights of others "Rights are individual, not collective." is utter crap. Cya later. I'm taking a break from reading bullshit.

Announcing an intention to trample over the rights of others is partly what freedom speech is all about. I mean, when Mr. Hogg announces his intention to trample over the rights of others, isn't that his freedom of speech? When Keith Lowell Jensen writes a book where he advocates punching people for saying things he doesn't like, isn't that an announced intention to trample over the rights of others?

Your example, moreover, didn't even suggest that someone was advocating trampling the rights of others. Your example was "so-and-so will not overcome us..." and the like. That's not trampling on anyone's rights. You might infer something from it, but all they've said is that so-and-so will not overcome them. Maybe it's false because nobody wants to overcome them. But, that doesn't make the statement illegal.

A person can either say X or not. That's what it comes down to. Freedom of speech cannot be enforced by someone saying that a "group" like "the alt right" or "antifa" have no right to speak because they advocate trampling the rights of others. Both groups sometimes do advocate trampling. So, do neither have the right to publish, write, march and chant?

What is it that is prohibited?

[pErvinalia]

I don't think he said anything should be prohibited. Again, you seem to be confusing legality with subjective morality.

[Seabass]

Seriously, how does someone become so unmoored from reality that they are more afraid of SJWs than global warming?

[Forty Two]

I don't think he said anything should be prohibited. Again, you seem to be confusing legality with subjective morality.

In his phrasing, it was unclear, and I suggested that he might want to clarify when I pointed out that I think phrasing the question "should society support...?" is unfortunate, because society is not one just one thing. What does it mean for "society to support" something people say?

I think people should always say please and thank you, and stand up when a lady approaches the table. Do I think "society should support" that? I guess. I mean, I don't want etiquette to be mandatory, but in my opinion, if you ask for something, you should say "may I please...."

Do I think people should be racists and say racist things out loud? No. I don't think so. I also don't think they should threaten to hit people who say things they don't like. What does "should society support" mean in that context?

The reason I answered the question as I did was because generally the way "society" decides something is by voting or by elected officials taking action in a representative capacity (or by legislatively created bodies making regulations within delegated authority). Other than that kind of action by society, society in the US is just 300 million people each with their own viewpoints on a topic or an issue of propriety/morality, and some viewpoints have more adherents than others. The alt right and the far, extreme left are all parts of "society" - so who should "society" support? And, how should that support be put into effect?

If the idea is to ask me what moral position "I" (forty two) supports, then that has nothing to do with what "society" supports. I can speak for myself, of course, and I do think that assholes of a variety of stripes should keep their festering gobs shut.

So, I get your point, and it's an important distinction to bear in mind. Are we talking society expressing its intent via law or public policy? Or, are we talking society as in what viewpoints do we think should win the day in the marketplace of ideas?

If he's not talking about society prohibiting something, then we probably are in near perfect agreement. I think it's fine for people who don't like racists to go out and counterprotest, to exclude them from things, to not invite them to things, to boycott them, etc. Fine in terms of acceptable behavior if that's what they want to do. I mean, if someone counterprotests a ladies' book club, I'd probably think the counterprotesters are douchebags, but I certainly ackowledge their right to protest the book club. I think it's similarly fine for racists to go out and protest too, of course - even though I think they're douchebags.

Part of what we're talking about was also the violence aspect, hitting the people we don't like. In that sense, I think alt right people have no right to lay a finger on anyone, except in the usual ways like "self defense" or "defense of others" or in some cases in defense of property (like where a store owner grabs and holds a shoplifter pending arrival of the police, and such). I don't think that they have a right to punch communists for espousing horrid communist ideologies, no matter how much damage they may think will potentially result from the success of such awful, terrible ideologies. Similarly, the far left has no right to punch alt right people or anyone else for just talking, writing, singing, carrying signs, or the like.

In that sense, society should certainly oppose such violence no matter who is the perpetrator or who is the victim - and by oppose I mean "make a law against" (as is the case almost everywhere in the first world). And, I think society by law should support or at least defend the right of nonviolent protest or expression, no matter what side or vector of the political spectrum a person might be on. If a white or black supremacist is attacked, then I think that the police should have an obligation to intervene or to arrest the attacker.

[Brian Peacock]

As an adjunct to this discussion: I would suggest that a 'right of freedom of speech' is not a consequence-free license to say whatever one wants in public. Instead I would say that 'freedom of speech' encapsulates a principle of protection if/when one is seeking to criticise and/or oppose the actions of the state - such that the state cannot interfere with you when it doesn't like what you're saying about it. Here I think we are really talking about a 'right of freedom of expression' - something which many Americans -- many people in fact -- appear to hold as absolute.

Does a self-proclaimed paedophile have an absolute right to express at the school gate their desire to take children as their sexual partners? Some might say that, sure, paedophiles have an absolute right to express their views in public however and wherever they like, but also an argument might be made that what they would be advocating here is illegality, and therefore the content of their expression could be, and therefore rightly should be, limited in law. This may indeed represent a valid limitation, but if so then the term 'absolute right' cannot be applied to 'freedom of expression' such that it remains a consequence-free license to say whatever one wants in public.

It is one of the founding principles of the US constitution that the rights of all citizens are equally endorsed and assured. One might say that expressing a desire to undermine or limit the rights of others (for example, in the way that white supremacists do with regards to those who do not meet their racial criteria) is to undermine or limit not just a principle but the actual scope of the constitution of the United States and the protections it affords all citizens. To advocate and agitate for a reduced or degraded form of constitutional rights based on a racial classification determined by those, who, by their own definition, are immune from such degradations, is to effectively argue that all US citizens' constitutional rights are conditional - not inalienable. Such advocates are in effect agitating for something which not only contravenes the US constitutional settlement, but something which fundamentally opposes it in terms of its scope and application to all citizens - and not just those who fail the racial tests of white supremacists.

If white supremacists are essentially no different to the paedophiles in the examples given then paedophiles must be just as entitled to agitate at the school gates as members of The National Vanguard are to agitate in Charlottesville, or, alternatively, 'freedom of expression' has some reasonable limits and therefore cannot be a consequence-free license to say whatever one wants in public.

Just sayin