Should there be liberty for the intolerant?

[Azrael Antilla]

The Amendment/Constitution aspect I wouldn't know about, not being an American.

Me neither. I don't understand the seemingly obsessive commitment to antiquated constitutional provisions that are actively detrimental. Like the free speech amendment and legally protected practically unfettered gun access.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

No Platform is a real horse to beat for the tories in their culture war.

God I hate the Conservative party. The mere mention of their name makes my blood boil. A shower of incompetent elitist racist authoritarian corrupt ********.

 

[Kooky]

Thing is, it's not even against the law to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, if there really is a fire. It's when there isn't a fire and someone yells "fire" is when it's against the law.

For the record, I don't believe it's against the law to yell "movie" in a crowded fire house.

It's not actually against the law in the US, IIRC.

Neither is it a criminal offence to put up a burning cross to intimidate people with racist hatred, by the way.
The 3rd KKK was dismantled by extended, financially ruinous civil court cases, not censorship nor well meaning white liberals befriending them, and its 4th iteration is still at large.

 

[Secret Chief]

God I hate the Conservative party. The mere mention of their name makes my blood boil. A shower of incompetent elitist racist authoritarian corrupt ********.

Yep.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Yep.

Led by Bozo the clown and his cohort of privileged wealthy old school network lackeys. Voted in by a minority of parochial gammonesque ovine morons once again, thanks to the slanderous right wing mass media and the current tide of reactionary right wing sentiment, and the streak of servile authoritarianism that taints the English soul. I exclude Scotland and Ireland specifically from that last statement. They have more grit and respect for human dignity. It would seem.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Either I've been spending too much time on Reddit, or there is an uprising in a certain political agenda that I believe would lead us straight to fascism. It's typically known as the "woke culture". I'm sure it's been talked about on here before.

I recently saw a Reddit post where a guy sporting a Swastika on his shoulder got punched in the face by a black guy. Thousands of comments were praising this, and it worries me.

I got into a debate in the thread that followed, I voiced my opinion that physical resentment to nonphysical opinion is exactly what the problem is in society. I argued that attacking these narrow minded sort of people just creates hate all around: 1) The Neo-nazi being attacked is going to be reinforced in his hate people of color because of this experience, 2) Neo-nazi's and other racists and bigots that saw the video are going to have their hate reinforced also. 3) Anti-white racists (which also seems to be a growing thing) are going to have their hate reinforced seeing this "justice" in action. .... etc. ---- A non-violent approach to the Neo-nazi would've spoken more, it would've shown peace from the person of color's side and influenced some bigot opinions to think "PoC aren't so bad", it would've reinforced the idea into some Anti-white racists that peace is a better reaction, etc. The Neo-nazi that was attacked may have been so relieved that he could've become more trusting or accepting of PoC - or not, but whatever the outcome it would've certainly been better than the reinforced hate from being decked in the face.

The debate eventually escalated into freedom of speech, whether or not we should tolerate the intolerant in society. I argued that people shouldn't be attacked for their opinions, they should be kept in check by reason and logic. When the bigoted opinions are no longer willing to meet at the level of reason and become harassment, that's when retaliation is necessary. Simply wearing a Swatsika is NOT harassment.

-----

The main point I'd like to discuss is how important it is to keep freedom of speech truly free. We shouldn't silence anybody for any opinion. Opinions aren't threatening, actions are. If we are to limit what a person is allowed to preach, speak about, believe, then that's the fertile grounds for fascism. If you are familiar with 1984, I think the Thought Police would become a literal thing if we start arresting people for wearing Swatsikas, using wrong gender pronouns, voicing their dislike for homosexuality - just like if we started arresting people for wearing BLM symbols, identifying as non-binary, or voicing their dislike for Christianity. It's all the same.

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression. Once we start silencing people, where does it end? Once Father Government has control over the words we say then the next thing you know we'll be unable to speak against the government at all.

I'm not a very political person, but that's something I know for a fact. We need to stop this censorship crap. We can't be banning stand-up comedians for offending us, we can't be punching people in the face for wearing symbols that offend us, we can't be accusing people of being transphobic or racist for any little thing people say (that's harassment just as much as actual transphobia and racism is). The majority will always speak the loudest, but this doesn't mean the minority should have no say. Are we really becoming better as a society by doing this thing, or just remaining the same but turning the tables?

Ever heard of stochastic terrorism? Essentially it is this: "Somebody needs to take this person out." should this be protected speech? Examples include nearly everything said by Pastor Rick Wiles. Then there is Josh Bernstein...

 

[Wandering Monk]

How about this guy? This fellow asks, '“No, and I’m not — that’s not a joke,” he continued. “I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?”"

Is his speech protected?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...WgEOBYEhbjN5O7a6a-tS8hkP3LSLWbxW67_4ddKi0-nn8

 

[Stevicus]

It's not actually against the law in the US, IIRC.

Neither is it a criminal offence to put up a burning cross to intimidate people with racist hatred, by the way.

I think it would come under ethnic or racist intimidation, which there are laws against. My understanding is that those involve specific targets, like if someone was going after and targeting someone due to their race. But it would have to have some sort of aggressive or violent behavior, not just wearing a swastika but otherwise minding their own business.

Burning a cross would be criminal if it was done on private property without the owner's permission - or if it was done on public property without a permit. Any kind of fire would probably fall under the fire codes, although I'm not sure of that. I think organized bonfires require a fire inspection to make sure everything is safe.

The 3rd KKK was dismantled by extended, financially ruinous civil court cases, not censorship nor well meaning white liberals befriending them, and its 4th iteration is still at large.

That is an effective strategy, yes.

Of course nowadays, they've been able to hide their assets via Bitcoin.

How white supremacists and the far right use Bitcoin to evade the law and get rich | Fortune

Here's a guy who has $18 million in court judgments against him, yet they can't find him nor find any assets he owns.

 

[Secret Chief]

Led by Bozo the clown and his cohort of privileged wealthy old school network lackeys. Voted in by a minority of parochial gammonesque ovine morons once again, thanks to the slanderous right wing mass media and the current tide of reactionary right wing sentiment, and the streak of servile authoritarianism that taints the English soul. I exclude Scotland and Ireland specifically from that last statement. They have more grit and respect for human dignity. It would seem.

Get off the fence, brother.

 

[Azrael Antilla]

Get off the fence, brother.

I tend not to vote. There is no British political party that properly represents my particular political stance. Labour in theory would come the closest I suppose. I don't support the fptp system. I don't even like the concept of political parties that much. Not a major fan of representative democracy really. I really don't like the Tories though, they kill the vulnerable with indifference and incompetence and impunity also it would seem. They sicken me. So next GE, I may have to **** in the ocean, and vote. For Labour (in this constituency) and Sir Keir Starmer.

 

[Kooky]

That is an effective strategy, yes.

Of course nowadays, they've been able to hide their assets via Bitcoin.

How white supremacists and the far right use Bitcoin to evade the law and get rich | Fortune

Here's a guy who has $18 million in court judgments against him, yet they can't find him nor find any assets he owns.

They also have financially potent backers among the tech crowd, who will continue to support their antics as long as they don't make national news. In this sense, both Charlottesville and the January 6th Coup were arguably a pretty big blow against American Neonazism, since these incidents revealed to a lot of people the ugly reality of a fascist movement. Anything that plays badly on national news is poison to funding from the millionaire class, but unfortunately, normalization is working against that principle, and as fascist ideas are increasingly brought into the mainstream and made normal, fewer and fewer people will see negative repercussions in backing them.

 

[Kooky]

How about this guy? This fellow asks, '“No, and I’m not — that’s not a joke,” he continued. “I’m not saying it like that. I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?”"

Is his speech protected?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...WgEOBYEhbjN5O7a6a-tS8hkP3LSLWbxW67_4ddKi0-nn8

American freedom of speech protects almost everyone who isn't saying bad things about the US military, its clandestine activities around the globe, or the activities of Russian hackers, so I would lean towards yes.

 

[Secret Chief]

I tend not to vote. There is no British political party that properly represents my particular political stance. Labour in theory would come the closest I suppose. I don't support the fptp system. I don't even like the concept of political parties that much. Not a major fan of representative democracy really. I really don't like the Tories though, they kill the vulnerable with indifference and incompetence and impunity also it would seem. They sicken me. So next GE, I may have to **** in the ocean, and vote. For Labour (in this constituency) and Sir Keir Starmer.

I fully concur with your sentiment (I was an active party member but it's like banging your head against a wall eg "I'll never vote Labour again after they shut the mines." What the actual?)

 

[Revoltingest]

Hate speech is curbed in the UK. I completely support all measures taken to silence Nazis and their kind. In the public sphere. Since I see no reason to value the so called freedom to spout hatred and incite violence over the freedom to walk down the street, without fear of some piece of crap, exercising their right to free speech by abusing and denigrating people in public.

I'm glad we have our more liberal standard.

 

[Ashoka]

I'm glad we have our more liberal standard.

I wish we did over here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm glad we have our more liberal standard.

It is much more useful for those that hate to make their presence known. It is easier to keep tabs on them if necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it would come under ethnic or racist intimidation, which there are laws against.

Does this mean that intimidation is legal
so long as it's not based on race & ethnicity?

 

[pearl]

Unlimited freedom of speech and nonviolent protest is how minorities speak for themselves, and it doesn't matter if these minorities are bigots, everybody deserves the right to stand up for themselves against what they believe is oppression.

There is a difference between free speech and inciting mob violence.
The motivation for both sides, in the USA, is defining the so-called American way.











t

 

[Stevicus]

Does this mean that intimidation is legal
so long as it's not based on race & ethnicity?

Well, of course, there are other forms of intimidation based on other things, whether it's religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or whatever it might be. But as I understand it, there are statutes which specifically mention racial or ethnic intimidation. But that would not imply that other forms of intimidation are legal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, of course, there are other forms of intimidation based on other things, whether it's religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or whatever it might be. But as I understand it, there are statutes which specifically mention racial or ethnic intimidation. But that would not imply that other forms of intimidation are legal.

Rather than having separate laws against intimidation
of this or that group, it would be better to just illegalize
intimidation in general. But I digress.