On Fascism and Free Speech
I'm not a political historian, but what I do know of Benito Moussilini's fascist regime is that it was created and maintained in part by very passionate and very violent action taken at the street level. By attacking or otherwise compromising their political rivals and detractors (individuals, homes, businesses, events, cities, etc..) early fascists knew that they could forcibly advance their own agenda (or party), and did so happily because in their eyes they were standing on the highest moral ground in sight.
This boils down to the idea that in a political/ideological arena, might makes right. Although fascists throughout history have believed in the validity and moral supremacy of their own particular ideas (hence their apparent will to achieve them by any means), if everyone were to behave that way, then "might makes right" is exactly what we would wind up with.
Thus we arrive at the most common understanding of the political label itself: a state/group/person that rules their people by force; characterized by authoritarian policies and behavior. The original Italian fascists held beliefs like the immorality of abortion (or at least that it was counter-productive to national strength) and used force to make their political and moral views into a reality. They could have been pro-abortion just the same and likewise used violence and force to have that view realized. The political views of the original fascists were considered far right and religiously conservative but a part of what defined them was the anti-democratic will to actually implement them by force via typically dogmatic appeals to what they perceived as a superior or ultimate moral/political right/objective.
Fascism is therefore inherently opposed to free-speech (that is, any speech critical of the fascists) because it is the first line of defense against the implementation of it's political agenda, and so it becomes the first casualty at their hands. Under fascism free-speech was seen as an evil or immoral tool of liberalism and democracy which serves to manipulate the minds of the masses toward what they felt were somehow immoral or harmful political views and actions which detracted from their superior goals; it is summarily moral from the perspective of a fascist to silence the speech of political detractors.
Which brings us face to face with one of the great political ironies of our time: self-styled anti-fascists using force to advance their party and objectives in a way which directly undermines the fundamental principles of democracy itself: the freedom of citizens to openly express their political views and to participate in the arena and marketplace of ideas whose products we hold as the very fruits of democracy itself
Mark Bray, who holds a PhD in Modern European and Women's Gender History from Rutgers and is an "antifa" activist, described historical fascists as having organized "these paramilitary units that would terrorize their left opponents" which forced the reactionary rise of anti-fascist groups to counter them, in an interview concerning anti-fascism and free speech. Later he summarizes his position by stating:
He goes on to describe the state of "the American Antifa movement":
When further asked: "Physically confronting people, that's part of the strategy, right?", he replied:
In Mark's view, fighting against what he perceives to be the dangerous sexism and racism of the "alt-right" and his political opponents is as justifiable as preventing a second holocaust. Ironically, like his fascist anti-forbears, he believes that because certain ideas are so dangerous that they should not be tolerated in society and should be silenced with force lest their very existence lead to tangible harm. He has unwittingly articulated and embraced that fundamental feature of fascism itself which would see it's political agenda advanced by any means, first and foremost with preventing the free speech and right to assembly of those who he broadly paints as fascist, nazi, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc... What stoked the passions of the original "blackshirts" (the first Italian fascist para-military) was in part dissatisfaction with the existing government or status quo. Driven by what they thought was enlightened understanding which could solve their social problems, they inflicted mass harm upon those who were perceived to stand in their way, and the new anti-fascist movement is advocating that we do the exact same thing for the greater good of those who would otherwise be seduced by the words of so called far-right fascists and their would be future victims.
Mark does great disservice to what he described as the defensive anti-fascist para-militaries of the 20's and 30's which sought to protect people from fascist violence and manipulation by himself advocating for that self-same aggression and violence as a primary means of pre-emptive offensive against his once and future enemies, the evil fascists (which according to him bear inexplicable similarities with windmills.)
So... If you personally believe that "punching a fascist/nazi in the face" is a morally justifiable or praiseworthy action, I'll not bother to muster opposition beyond the above, but if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to punch a perceived nazi or fascist in the face, take a moment's pause and ask yourself: "Is this person really a nazi or fascist?". "Do they actually support the extermination of Jews?". "Are they actually a white supremacist?". "Are they actually trying to implement their own authority by the use of violence and force?". "Would punching my political opponents in the face, trying to get them fired, de-platformed, and shutting down private political speaking events and gatherings by force actually make me guilty of the very crimes which drove the original movement upon which mine is based?". "Is that what irony is?"...
This boils down to the idea that in a political/ideological arena, might makes right. Although fascists throughout history have believed in the validity and moral supremacy of their own particular ideas (hence their apparent will to achieve them by any means), if everyone were to behave that way, then "might makes right" is exactly what we would wind up with.
Thus we arrive at the most common understanding of the political label itself: a state/group/person that rules their people by force; characterized by authoritarian policies and behavior. The original Italian fascists held beliefs like the immorality of abortion (or at least that it was counter-productive to national strength) and used force to make their political and moral views into a reality. They could have been pro-abortion just the same and likewise used violence and force to have that view realized. The political views of the original fascists were considered far right and religiously conservative but a part of what defined them was the anti-democratic will to actually implement them by force via typically dogmatic appeals to what they perceived as a superior or ultimate moral/political right/objective.
Fascism is therefore inherently opposed to free-speech (that is, any speech critical of the fascists) because it is the first line of defense against the implementation of it's political agenda, and so it becomes the first casualty at their hands. Under fascism free-speech was seen as an evil or immoral tool of liberalism and democracy which serves to manipulate the minds of the masses toward what they felt were somehow immoral or harmful political views and actions which detracted from their superior goals; it is summarily moral from the perspective of a fascist to silence the speech of political detractors.
Which brings us face to face with one of the great political ironies of our time: self-styled anti-fascists using force to advance their party and objectives in a way which directly undermines the fundamental principles of democracy itself: the freedom of citizens to openly express their political views and to participate in the arena and marketplace of ideas whose products we hold as the very fruits of democracy itself
Mark Bray, who holds a PhD in Modern European and Women's Gender History from Rutgers and is an "antifa" activist, described historical fascists as having organized "these paramilitary units that would terrorize their left opponents" which forced the reactionary rise of anti-fascist groups to counter them, in an interview concerning anti-fascism and free speech. Later he summarizes his position by stating:
"essentially anti-fascists are arguing that, we want a political content to how we look at speech in society, which is drastically different from a liberal take, and that this entails shutting down the extreme manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism".
He goes on to describe the state of "the American Antifa movement":
"Under that specific banner, it's still relatively new and it’s finding its way, but a lot of anti-fascist or Antifa groups have formed in different cities around the United States. A lot of what they do is researching information on local white supremacists, who they are, where they live, where they work, sometimes pressuring their employers to get them fired, sometimes making sure that if they organize private events at local venues for white supremacists, they pressure the venue owner to try and cancel the event. So that research and coalition building with groups that are affected by various forms of fascists or white supremacist violence is a lot of what's done. What gets more of the headlines is when the demonstrations come out onto the street. And so, as I’m sure you and, and the number of listeners are well aware, there been high-profile instances recently, such as in Berkeley, of trying to physically shut down events that has raised the profile of anti-fascism."
When further asked: "Physically confronting people, that's part of the strategy, right?", he replied:
"Yes, it is. It’s an illiberal politics – [laughter] - of social revolutionist applied to fighting the far right".
In Mark's view, fighting against what he perceives to be the dangerous sexism and racism of the "alt-right" and his political opponents is as justifiable as preventing a second holocaust. Ironically, like his fascist anti-forbears, he believes that because certain ideas are so dangerous that they should not be tolerated in society and should be silenced with force lest their very existence lead to tangible harm. He has unwittingly articulated and embraced that fundamental feature of fascism itself which would see it's political agenda advanced by any means, first and foremost with preventing the free speech and right to assembly of those who he broadly paints as fascist, nazi, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc... What stoked the passions of the original "blackshirts" (the first Italian fascist para-military) was in part dissatisfaction with the existing government or status quo. Driven by what they thought was enlightened understanding which could solve their social problems, they inflicted mass harm upon those who were perceived to stand in their way, and the new anti-fascist movement is advocating that we do the exact same thing for the greater good of those who would otherwise be seduced by the words of so called far-right fascists and their would be future victims.
Mark does great disservice to what he described as the defensive anti-fascist para-militaries of the 20's and 30's which sought to protect people from fascist violence and manipulation by himself advocating for that self-same aggression and violence as a primary means of pre-emptive offensive against his once and future enemies, the evil fascists (which according to him bear inexplicable similarities with windmills.)
So... If you personally believe that "punching a fascist/nazi in the face" is a morally justifiable or praiseworthy action, I'll not bother to muster opposition beyond the above, but if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to punch a perceived nazi or fascist in the face, take a moment's pause and ask yourself: "Is this person really a nazi or fascist?". "Do they actually support the extermination of Jews?". "Are they actually a white supremacist?". "Are they actually trying to implement their own authority by the use of violence and force?". "Would punching my political opponents in the face, trying to get them fired, de-platformed, and shutting down private political speaking events and gatherings by force actually make me guilty of the very crimes which drove the original movement upon which mine is based?". "Is that what irony is?"...
Comments (54)
I've been air-boating over this odious ideological cesspool for over a year now in an effort to understand it, but what caused me to suddenly write this is the recent uptick in it's severity and prevalence. It comes not from general anti-racism and anti-sexism, but rather (at least originally) from a specific and radical line of reasoning (and rationalization) which until very recently was stuck inside an academic bubble of it's own creation. I'm starting to see it like a virus that mutated to make the leap from infecting birds to infecting humans.
It begins by explaining how individual instances of micro-aggression or casual prejudice serve to perpetuate the statistical inequalities facing any given minority by contributing to a system of widespread (feelings) oppression. They don't focus on tangibly racist actions that are already illegal such as refusing customers based on race, but instead how our subconscious biases lead directly to the emotional suffering of minorities and therefore indirectly to their physical and economic suffering.
So to put this in other (their) words, when a person tells a joke which *may cause* someone to feel offended on the basis of race, gender, or identity, this is tantamount to, and the very foundation of, everything that is bad in the world, because the emotional suffering experienced by minorities as a result will inherently keep them down while reinforcing our own sexist and racist tendencies which currently prevent us from being not sexist and not racist, on the whole, as evidenced by the existence of statistical inequalities.
The dearth of genuine western racism and sexism in the post 90's world is really what forced a mutation from "don't oppress" as a mantra to "don't offend" instead, and with all the offense taking that's been happening recently it has finally found a suitable vector to spread. Now I see people equate insensitive satire with hate speech, and hate speech with the holocaust on an almost daily basis. For those so taken with these ideas, lives are on the line when a speaker shows up to their university who happens to make X Y or Z group of people feel "unsafe". Free-speech is a small price to pay when you already have the right ideas and all that remains is their physical and morally righteous enforcement.
It's perhaps even more ironic that by censoring and shutting down their ideological opponents (and anything that offends them), these individuals and groups are largely insulating their own worldview from external criticism, thereby protecting their resolve from the very thing they have unwittingly begun to destroy: liberalism and democracy.
First, all states are necessarily centers of violence and power. States ultimately use force and the recognized monopoly on power they possess to enforce law and policy, so that part of the definition is not problematic. The next part is actually leads to an interesting discussion: liberals may have a wider area of what is allowed and is not allowed, but they still have an area and will use force, suppression, and peer pressure in order to get others to conform to their ideology. For example, there are certain things you cannot say and expect to be taken seriously within a liberal society, to the point where saying such will merit being ridiculed, publicly shunned, or, in certain instances, forced if you try to do certain actions regarding your beliefs. Ultimately, if a group with anti-liberal values or something outside the scope of currently acceptable speech starts becoming anything more than some extreme fringe of blog-posters, you can expect extreme conflict.
The extreme libertarian must, ultimately, be brought to conform within liberal society. We can let the libertarian publish books and maybe hold a couple of meetings, but, at some point, there are core liberal values that must be enforced. The act of speech may be very much protected within liberal society, but everything else and protection from reactions of speech are not protected. I can lose my job, be blacklisted, be shunned by the community, and be forced to cooperate with authoritarian policies under force of punishment. This is how things are: there is a scope of acceptability within every society. There are values that liberal society enforces and if you step over the line, you are out, whether that line is legal or social.
And that is what people are arguing for today. They are saying the scope of acceptability within our society should shift, just like we all try to argue for in our own way. There are statements you just couldn't say today that you could fifty years ago. You could call racial groups ethnic slurs or openly state things that we would clearly find racist by any reasonable standard, and you would have a plethora of defenders.
The fascist symbol--a "fasces": the axe in the middle of the bundle of rods. There is nothing "fascist" about the fasces: It's old, and appears on the wall behind the Speaker of the House of Representatives and was on some American coins (at least). It goes back to Roman times. "Fascism" was invented in the 20th century, in Italy.
There are right wingers, authoritarians, nationalists, intolerant leaders, and so on who, as objectionable as they might be, are NOT fascists because they are in favor of democracy, are not slavishly obedient, don't believe in the inherent superiority of one ethnic group, and so on. This is to say, not everything objectionable is fascist, and fascists might not be all that objectionable, at least over dinner and drinks.
Indeed in every society there is a shifting set of norms but as I would define it beyond the common meaning, "fascism" itself can originate from the desire to shift or progress these norms but manifests as the distinct anti-democratic willingness to physically enforce it as an immutable national and moral standard.
It's of course a host of complex things which drives the adherents of any particular political platform toward what I view as the crux of fascism, and when it comes to some modern liberal crowds, the ingredients seem to be there all in ample supply.
Take healthcare for example: One ideologue believes that the ACA makes medical coverage more expensive, and therefore oppose it on liberal grounds. Another ideologue believes that trying to dismantle the ACA will also make their medical coverage more expensive, and therefore oppose it on liberal grounds (and they might even both be right). But while from both their perspectives they are thetrue liberal, the moment one of them shows up the the other's political rally with the intention of silencing their political speech and to use violence to achieve this, they've gone ahead and attacked the very foundation upon which liberalism depends, and have re-enacted precisely the actions that made the original fascists distinct from other right/conservative parties.
Really my intention with this thread is to point out the glaring hypocrisy among the groups who do seriously overuse the term "fascist". The behavior of those who constantly use the term is more akin to what made the fascists actually dangerous in the first place than the rhetoric of those who they label as fascist nazis is actually fascist or nazi-esque..
Belief in their own moral superiority and dissatisfaction with the status quo is the emotional catalyst that seems to allow them to go beyond what the tenets of democracy permit, and in that singular regard they become more like the actual fascists than any other existing political group. I'm not a fan of labels of this kind myself, but given they've already bastardized the word, I simply cannot resist re purposing it as a rhetorical tool against them
Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. Construing a racist joke as tantamount to lynching, or a sexist joke as rape, and so on are exaggerations. Another method of the AcLibs is to reduce the colorful, nuanced world into black-and white, not even employing half-tones of gray. Black and white is of course much simpler than 1000 shades of gray.
True enough, many AcLibs have an authoritarian streak, though I haven't seen any signs lately exhorting the people to obey Noam Chomsky. Being somewhat authoritarian doesn't make them fascists. It does make them democratic trip hazards.
A third method of AcLibs is to employ terms that can only have vague meaning (like "micro-aggression") and then treat them (when convenient) as if they were precise.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Hate-speech codes, safe spaces, trigger-word warnings, and all that are not highly compatible with "free speech". The politically correct AcLibs are maybe more interested in free speech than your typical fascists, but truth be told, people of all stripes dislike hearing too many dissenting opinions. Mostly we think we are obviously correct in our views, and other people who disagree with us are either stupid, crooked, or both.
But then, there are some fascists or crypto-fascists around. I'd label one of my brothers-in-law as one: he's extremely conservative; is a fan of the southern confederacy; he's pro-military (former submariner), doesn't like blacks, gays, or leftists; is rigid in his thinking; and so on. For crypto-fascists, it's the combination of traits that adds up to crypto-fascism--not an explicit political philosophy. He isn't an unpleasant person (as long as you don't tangle with him on politics, religion, and the like).
There are white-supremacists (or other supremacists) who are explicit in the political philosophy who are, clearly, fascists. Fortunately, at this point, they aren't all that common. Given an economic and social collapse, I'd expect a lot more actual fascists to form and emerge.
There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when you shovel black and white AcLib rhetoric semester after semester onto young impressionable minds; they believe it. The AcLib pundits themselves seem to know better than to actually call for or condone violence, and they (seem to) understand that free-speech is is a necessary part of a liberal democracy, but at large and out on the street violence is justified on the spot with slogans like "our lives are on the line" under an extreme all or nothing mentality.
The AcLib will at length explain to you how micro-aggressions like edgy jokes normalize subconscious xenophobia and attitudes which otherizes and excludes minorities in a self-perpetuating of cycle of inter-generational bigotry and systemic oppression, but out in the field an insensitive joke or action is perceived as the final swing of the axe. Minor defeats become the validation of their worst fears, and the zeal really seems to be showing of late.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I can only dream of a world where people use language in a way that actually and effectively communicates substantive meaning. <3 Thanks for that momentary window into a linguistically sane arena :)
I want to freeze your in-law in carbonite and use him to repeatedly bludgeon the intellects of this crowd of ideologues which seems to be growing at an uncomfortably large rate. I had better be careful though, as metaphorical violence such as that might warrant a bit of the old actual-violence visited upon by these oh so humble droogies.
A question: Was the USSR a fascist regime?
It is is usually not labeled as fascist. It was, in someways, successfully multicultural. That is, Muslims and Christians were both suppressed. "Russians" weren't called the master race, but a lot of Ukrainians were treated very, very badly. Joseph Stalin killed a lot of people for political purposes (millions). Stalin was authoritarian (as was the entire Communist bureaucracy). What the Soviets were not was conservative, religiously oriented (as Spain and Italy were), and focused on one ethnic group.
Sure. Send somebody round to collect him.
When it comes down to it I'm not at all certain what the actual Nazi sentiment towards democracy as a whole was (democratic dictator is an oxymoron certainly). Having emerged within what was possibly perceivable as a democratic state (a constitutional republic?), they managed to do the kind of authoritarian control by force (arguably subverting democracy) that we have since come to associate most heavily with the term fascist. In contemporary use it seems the ideological particulars of a group are less important than the style and manner in which they are implemented for people to describe it as "fascist".
In that sense the USSR does bear many hallmarks of a fascist authoritarian state: killing (en masse) of political enemies, unquestionable rule from the top, violent enforcement at the bottom, and the dogmatic belief in the one correct way of doing things. Semantically speaking, I would indeed label the USSR as fascist (in 2016) presuming that this connotation of specifically anti-democratic rule-by force can be garnered rather than "whatever Don Trump is" being the grab bag.
SEEEE!? THIS IS WHAT AN ACTUAL FASCIST LOOKS LIKE!!!
BONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!!!!!!
I think it does take some humility and understanding to accept that you live in a world where you don't know everything and don't always know best, and that other people ought to have a right to their say as you to yours. When widespread dissatisfaction is prevalent though, this democratic tenant is tested by moral counter-argument (and rightly so in my opinion).
It becomes a question of whether not prevailing conditions are so bad that they warrant the subversion of democracy itself. Through specific lenses, from within specific social and academic circles, in the media and on the streets, many are finding an answer to that question, or at least beginning to, and I see free speech as the unhealthy canary about to signal more and more violence to come ...
Sounds a lot like the Tea Party lot, they won in the end. Now Dems are going back to the town hall, I wonder if they can be confrontational.
Neo Fascism seems to be very concerned about Nationalism, but now their target population are Muslims and other immigrants, which is ironic given that the USA was settled by immigrants. Today's liberals seem obsessed with political correctness to the extent that they are willing to censor those that ignore their rules. Here is Bill Maher's interview with Milo Yiannopoulos last night. As discussed both of these men were censored at Berkeley (although Maher was able to give his commencement address and the possibility of Yiannopoulos talk caused a riot) which has to be an accomplishment of sorts.
I thought Maher handled him well.
It was pretty interesting to see Bill and Milo in the same room, let alone actually attempt to have a conversation where agreements were had. Bill has always been opinionated in the extreme and while I have not agreed with his many of them in recent years he at least understands the importance of meeting ideological opponents on an intellectual level, and the hypocrisy and danger of meeting them with force or violence instead.
Milo did seem to get away with one interesting point: free-speech now appears to be a conservative value more than a liberal one (despite Trump and his thoughts on slander law). That some proponents of the left are so willing to turn on their own and "de-platform" them rather than actually come to consensus or clarification through discussion and debate is a pretty good example of what he meant by this. The obsession of some with political correctness is what I think largely creates the moral superiority complex these de-platformers appeal to in order to feel comfortable doing so. The group feelings based mentality that some use as an approach to progressivism is close to the heart of why serious political discussion has become so difficult of late. If someone gets hurt feelings then according to the PC crowd a crime has been committed, and are therefore they are unable to realistically discuss any controversial issues whatsoever. (unless, (for some reason), the controversy happens to lay at the feet of white-cis-straight-males).
What I would say to the PC crowd is this: "Paraphrasing Hitchens: Fuck your feelings. If you don't show up to the debate, you lost it. If you shut the debate down because your feelings are hurt, you lost it. If you're unable to expose yourself to the positions of your political opponents from your safe spaces, grow up or shut up. What's worse than Trump-tea-toadling bible belters is the sight and revelation of your mewling infancy when you suddenly realized hand-size jokes and "'cause oppression" wound up being less than persuasive arguments. Fuck your feelings because they get in the way of truth, and you fucked that up so bad this time around that we had to instead settle for the lunacy that now pervades every day of our lives".
But, since this is too big a story and too relevant not to mention, here it is: The (most) popular Youtuber Felix "Pewdiepie" Kjellberg has been openly labeled as a nazi-supporting anti-semite by the wall-street journal, who upon contacting Disney armed with about a dozen or so jokes involving hitler pulled without context from a few of Felix's 3000+ youtube videos, managed to get their partnership dropped
In each and every case Felix was not in fact supporting anti-semitism or spreading Nazi propaganda, he was very obviously attempting to make humorous and valid social commentary/satire which more often than not seems to have hit it's mark. Robbed of all context however, and having successfully maneuvered Disney and other sponsors to drop "Pewdiepie", the WSJ decided to publish the hit piece and give it the title : "Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts", which in reality should have read "Once respected journal alienates the entire (mostly youth) fan-base of one of the most popular internet and social media figures of all time by publishing blatantly desperate and libelous misrepresentation of political views". Not your typical style of headline, but the WSJ have dug themselves into a not-so-typical hole by doing this, along with many other sources are demonstrating journalistic incompetence by parroting the same misrepresentation...
Even J.K Rowling is tweeting about it as if the labels of "anti-semite" and "nazi" and "fascist" are in any way deserved or are going to stick. I'm no fan of Felix but I feel absolutely forced to rally behind him right now because the attack on him was so swiftly and haphazardly decided, and so unreasonable in measure, that's there's no telling who will be next, or for what reason.
This is kind of a new height of un-glory for the WSJ. Three bored "journalists" with the hundreds of hours required to review Felix's entire channel have potentially managed to sour a massive chunk of our youth's perception of (once) respected mainstream media with the single solitary tool of lying by omission by making technically true statements 100% devoid of all relevant context.
If we ignore the blatantly misleading framing of the original WSJ article, they're still putting forward the idea that depicting objectionable content whatsoever regardless of context is still a punishable offense (which if true also describes their own article for reposting the allegedly anti-semitic content). This is very much along the lines of that whole micro-aggression hypothesis that has us censor any speech which might offend any minority group in a never ending game of ever inflamed and ever growing emotional sensitivity.
The call to de-platform a popular youtuber because of some edgy jokes is just the latest, but one of the most ridiculous, in a series of cultural missteps that mainstream thought leaders have been taking.
I think anarchists and marxist rioters are being labelled academic liberals. I assume the position is the assumption that the anti-fascist movement is ironically committing the same aggressive advances of the Italian fascists that engender a moral supremacy to their own ideals. But the real question here is whether freedom of association and speech of any group - call them fascists or white supremacists - that endorses hate against particular races or the like, should be permitted.
And perhaps - being Australian - I am unable to ascertain the historical and certainly deep rooted influences that would enable people to burn crosses in front of an African-American families' home (R.A.V., Petitioner v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota) which is a clear symbol of hate, while criminalising some peculiar offences such as topless sunbathing and yet seems downright passionate about justifying obscene political messages by hiding behind the first amendment; for instance, in Ohio v. Wyant that confirmed the unconstitutionality of bias-related crimes.
The is one of the reasons here in Australia that arguments relating to whether or not we should have a Bill of Rights often proceed with great caution because some ambiguous human rights positions require legal flexibility to avoid erroneous conclusions; we want to ensure freedom of speech and association whilst additionally protecting the citizens of any race, ethnicity, skin-colour and nationality from hate speech and/or incitement to hate.
So, do you think the protests are an outcome of your legislative failures?
Being Canadian, what I define as hate-speech mostly has to do with knowingly inciting hatred or violence against a particular religious or ethnic group. It's legal to hold the belief and proclaim that the white race is superior (whatever that might mean), but it is illegal to advocate for actions (which may or may not be based on such a controversial belief) of hatred or violence against a specific group.
"Hatred" here is a bit tricky, but more or less the hate speech laws are about protecting people from harmful hate speech, which specifically does not include something like mere ridicule or affronts to dignity. People like Milo who are excellent provocateurs certainly ridicule and affront the dignity of many individuals and groups, but what Milo has not done is actually advocate for any violence of any kind. For me a part of the whole issue is that people are asking questions like"is it moral to punch nazis in the face?" and "Ought we to permit white supremacists and other groups who do not share our moral values the right to public assembly and free speech?" as if the people they're actually talking about (Trump, Milo, et al.) are genuinely fascist or nazi or white supremacist, let alone the fact that they're preparing to throw democracy out the window by doing so.
Everyone seems to have jumped the gun of actually trying to understand their political opponents and straight to the moral question of whether we need to use physical force against them in a sudden desire for pre-emptive-thought-police-brutality. Is hearing a bigot or fascist speak and seeing their ideology for what it is really so dangerous?
If we should censor opinions of white supremacists, why? And what else should we be censoring on those grounds as well?
Anarchists and marxist rioters on the one hand, and academic liberals on the other are quite distinct. For one, the number of the former are very small. The latter are far more numerous and whatever they might say, they are upwardly mobile professionals who aren't going to put their lifestyle at risk by throwing rocks through bank windows.
"Serious marxists" came to the conclusion a long time ago that when it comes to political violence, the state is much better at it than anybody else and taking on the police, national guard, or army is a good way to end up dead in the street.
Quoting TimeLine
The contradiction between not prosecuting cross-burners and arresting nude sun bathers arises from unrelated sources. The problem with the ordinance in the cross-burning case was that it was overly comprehensive, forbidding protected political speech:
It isn't relevant to the law, but the "cross burning" was an extremely inept performance by 1 teenager, not a dozen adult Ku Klux Klaners doing a "proper" cross burning.
Laws banning public nudity, nude sun bathing, recklessly exposed genitalia, and such have altogether different roots. One root is a common and long-standing squeamishness about sexual parts. This isn't unique to the US. Another root is the collective sense of propriety. It isn't proper for some people to remove all of their clothing in public where other people are not doing so. It's impolite. A third root is dislike of homosexuals who seem to be the most likely to remove their clothes or recklessly expose their genitalia in public to facilitate lewd, lascivious, polymorphously perverse sexual purposes. And what about INNOCENT CHILDREN observing adult sexual organs!
So, contradictions abound.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I don't think the recent political protests (such as in Berkeley, California) are the result of legislative failure.
People engage in protest activity for various reasons, some of them far from straight-forward. Generally, though, people become politically active around economic issues (directly or indirectly).
Tensions between groups in society, friction, rifts, upheavals, and so forth generally have economic causes. Blacks, gays, and women, for example, didn't/don't demonstrate because they aren't getting good press or because they aren't winning enough Oscars. They demonstrate because they feel they are getting the short end of the economic stick. Whites don't want blacks to move into their neighborhoods because their main piece of wealth -- their homes -- will be devalued, even if that is somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy. Workers don't like seeing too many immigrants who will be competing with them for jobs and wages. Poor blacks don't like seeing gentrification because it raises rents and/or taxes and reduces the stock of affordable housing in a given area. Nobody wants to see half-way houses for released felons in their neighborhoods, nobody wants a large garbage burner anywhere near them.
Sometimes people demonstrate on behalf of others, or engage in vicarious struggle, when they have no skin in the game. Such is the case when white, middle class and above, college students join Black Lives Matter demonstrations and "lay their lives on the line" [sic] along with their recently acquired black brothers and sisters. Frankly, I don't believe them. When they graduate from school and pursue whatever profession they choose, they are not going to continue showing up at BLM demos. They will be living in nice enclaves with their own kind -- which is only reasonable. If they move to the slums it won't be in solidarity, it will be as urban pioneers leading the gentrification charge.
A few decades back, in the early days of AIDS, some straight people suddenly wanted to identify with the suffering and oppression of gay men. My reaction at the time was "Go find you own oppression, damn it, and leave mine alone." Allies are one thing, parasites are something else.
The anarchists and marxists -- or whoever the hell they were -- who were rioting, throwing rocks at big windows, spray-painting walls, and so forth were going for a free ride on the free-speech bus. The rioters may have disliked the guys speaking at Berkeley, but their small rioting was pretty much guaranteed to have adverse consequences. ("Infantile adventurism" the old time communists called it.)
There is nothing inherently wrong with destruction of private property during a riot. BUT, it has to be for a good reason, and it has to contribute to a larger cause. Such is not usually the case. Riots are very blunt instruments; way too blunt. For instance... IF during an anti-war riot some property belonging to the manufacturer of cluster bombs or landmines was wrecked, as part of the action to end an illegal, unpopular, and possibly illegal war using landmines and cluster bombs, that would be fine. But wrecking the same property during a women's march against Trump would be absurd, stupid, and counterproductive.
Quantity has no bearing over the amount of noise a small group of anarchists and marxists can make, I can assure you. I have never been fond of the academic leftists and I have never appreciated the smug conservatives either as both appeal to methods of a peculiar kind that contributes unfavourably to rational progress. I was battered and beaten when studying graduate political science by marxists, conservatives and the academic leftists that tore my thesis design apart as I stood sandwiched between the tussle of the three attempting to convince me which method I should conform to. I ultimately dropped out mostly from the isolation I felt. The worst of the three, though, was the Marxist who constantly insulted and degraded 'me' when I opposed taking his suggested routes, even went so far as to ostracise me from conference funding and publically insulted me at graduate meetings. The academic leftists and conservatives are at least bearable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is the precise problem, though, the question of whether the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was - though unconstitutional - wrong? These questions have been pondered on the subject of international human rights laws and whether one can legislate core human rights instruments on subjects - such as cultural rights - without it paradoxically creating the very problems it seeks to avoid. In Australia, we have - rather appropriately in my opinion - avoided a Bill of Rights and instead adopted legislative changes that protect core human rights principles whilst at the same time enabled the judiciary the flexibility to remain fair through the separation of powers, something not done fairly in the USA.
The discourse on how the gesture was admirable undermines the importance of fairness on both common and legislative grounds and this hard, positive and equitable approach needs to be tempered by notions of fairness.
Comparatively, one can think that restricting hate speech is a type of affirmative action. What do you think?
Quoting Bitter Crank
From memory, there was more than one but nevertheless this is really diverting the argument from the point; whilst it may be considered an isolated incident, there are many other causal factors that need to be considered by such an act, including what led to it as much as the ramifications of it that would inevitably broaden the demographics. The US has a consistently high record of hate crimes, Bitter, as you are likely well aware.
It is interesting that you say that the laws banning nudity - a considerably logical law to have - has different roots namely that of the repulsion one experiences witness body parts; but, isn't it just as repulsive, repugnant and disgusting witness a cross being burned on the lawn of an African American home?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Being fake has its benefits both socially and within the employability market, something clearly seen in the competitive field of law. To see me 'downgrade' my intelligence by working with young, disadvantaged refugees after receiving academic accolades in a law degree that could have enabled me a financially rewarding career confused the many people who pretended to care about worldly affairs, human rights and even animal rights only because the 'good' image they create enabled them this employability and social power. Sometimes, even corporates mock them, like the veggie burger from McDonalds appealing to vegetarians, a capitalist food chain that is environmentally destructive both in terms of clear-cutting forests to agriculture cows that happen to produce massive amounts of Co2 emmissions and play a wonderful part in destroying not just animals but people too?
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is where I disagree in multiple ways. I do think it is wrong destroying private property, but I do not think the cause for the riots was not for a good reason. It was, it was necessary, but not to that extreme. I think the tactical advantages of behaving in that way failed to see how it fed directly into the fascist agenda by people - even intelligent ones like you - thinking twice about the leftist cause. There is a great deal of hate crimes, discrimination, violence and bigotry that can clearly espouse why these protests should take place and/or working toward the prevention of hate speech.
Neo-fascist utilize absolute liberal values such as free speech to 'de-platorm' liberal biases inserting their own spin on these values as viable alternatives (patriotic speech versus 'treasonable' speech), which enables them to escape open censure and gives the general population a definitive versus nebulous direction. The transformation of values in this manner reminds me of religion, and perhaps main stream religions are essentially fascist, where fascism's emphasis on race becomes religion's emphasis on membership.
It is interesting to note that one of Trump's main goals is to overturn the Johnson Amendment, which
(Wikipedia)
The arguments for and against this amendment revolve around free speech as an absolute right versus the separation of Religion from Politics. The pragmatic political right sees it as a way to channel church/charitable funds into their coffers with no disclosure and at the same time enable pastors to extol their political values.
[As an aside, I think it is interesting to note (this is ongoing) that the contentious state of affairs that surround Pope Francis's liberal attitudes within the Catholic Church are now surfacing. Recently posters went up in Rome with an image of Francis scowling and the following:
CNA 2/6/17
Then not 10 days later, a fake newspaper with a very conservative content concentrating on Francis's equivocation on divorce (the Conservative's view of Francis' policy) was distributed around Rome.]
I'm sorry you had such a wretched experience in graduate school.
I think there is a difference between "real-world" and "campus based" marxists. Real-world marxists are usually not academically oriented, usually tend the sacred fire of an old socialist organization (Communist Party-USA, Socialist Workers, Socialist Labor, socialist something or other...) These are the marxists I'm most familiar with. They are usually a pretty decent group of people--not terribly effective, though.
My information about campus-based marxists is mostly second-hand. The thing about campuses (as you know) is that there are snake pits in many departments, from business administration to dance. Get a bunch of ambitious, highly competitive people together to fight over limited resources and some marginal issues and a snake pit will form.
Quoting TimeLine
I am not a fan of 'bias-motivated" crime ordinances.
People have a right to certain things: equal access to public educational opportunities; access to employment for which they are qualified; equal access to a standard level of health care; access to equal public accommodations (transportation, restaurants, hotels, etc. entertainment), and so on. These rights can be readily upheld by straightforward law-enforcement.
"Bias motivation" is not necessarily clear from the start. Was I robbed and beaten at gun-point because I was gay, or was it because I looked like I might be worth robbing? Was the man shot because he was black, or because he seemed to behave in a dangerous manner? Was the woman raped because she was female, white, and alone, or was it because she was a communist, atheist, lesbian?
The crimes committed against these example-persons are bad enough. Frankly, I don't care whether I was robbed and beaten because I was gay, or because I looked like I might be worth robbing. I would deeply resent the beating and robbery, either way.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think of hate-speech-restrictions as affirmative action.
I would rather live in a society where it is permissible to say "I hate fags" than live in one where it is illegal to say "I hate fags". I want to be free to express my opinions, and if I am free to say what I think, others should be similarly free. We have limits on free speech at the extreme edge: We are not free to encourage everyone who hates fags to get together and actually target and kill any gay men they might know of, or suspect. The limit here is on conspiring to kill people, not on hating fags. We are not free to engage in conspiracies to commit crimes--even ones involving no bias at all -- like robbing a bank.
I cannot recall too many examples of the right calling out "treasonous speech", but this is certainly along the very same lines as the left using the "hate-speech" argument in order to try and have their political opponents censored. While I do agree with the principle of censoring someone who broadcasts "Hey let's all go kill these gays at this place and at this time" or "Here's how to comprise North-American ICBM defenses ... ...", but the risk we constantly run is when our own biases have us use these labels when it's not apt or accurate to do so. Saying "I hate Jews" is hate filled, contemptuous and entirely contestable, but it's not reasonably perceivable as a threat to anyone's safety, and it's not feasible to cultivate a society free of hate by legislating the emotions, even if irrational, that people happen to feel. Likewise saying "I hope the president fails" could somehow be described as a treasonous desire, but it is not a treasonous action nor in any way facilitates treason.
Both in the case of expanding free speech rights to non-profits and corporations, or attempting to contract free speech rights along the lines of moral sensibility, the intent and purpose of free-speech in a democratic and liberal society is undermined. People seem to opportunistically embrace these pitfalls when they happen to temporarily align with immediate political interests on both sides. Notably on the right with a desire to politically empower non-profits like churches because they mostly align with the party platform (although this is already an issue on both sides, just not on the left as an actual ideological position (the left opposes big money in politics in rhetoric only)), and notably on the left with the labeling of opposition as hatred fit to be physically confronted rather than intellectually/ideologically challenged and overcome. All I can say is that in all such cases we need to recognize and understand the fundamental importance of free-speech if we're to protect it as a democratic function from our own immediate biases.
As it relates to my intent with this thread, the contraction of speech (rather than the over-expansion of it) is more in line with the intolerance that typified the original fascists. Both are a threat to the successful functioning of democracy, but specifically in address to those who believe they oppose fascism while simultaneously silencing by force those who they disagree with, it might only take a look in the mirror to disarm them.
He sometimes rants about how kids should be learning how to build tables instead of playing video-games, but he's not a complete idiot. It's very easy for him to be a reactionary in what he perceives as the war on free speech given that his niche is oft branded as bigoted and intolerant by the outrage savvy proponents of the overly passionate left.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Hate speech is a form of violence; you do not need to experience physical violence and the impact of hate speech can injure a person psychologically and emotionally. In Australia, we have a plethora of legal protections such as racial vilification laws under the Racial Discrimination Act that does not limit any form of "insulting, humiliation, offence or intimidation of another person or group in public on the basis of their race" to just expression through words, but also prohibits the use of "singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets and websites" and must do so only in public. Most human rights legislation provides legal exemptions from the prohibitions to enable 'room' to ensure that assessments do not result in an absurd conclusion - that is, if the offender acted reasonably and in good faith, judges have the capacity to assess the intentions, circumstances and impact to confirm whether they are culpable. So, it is not about 'advocating violence' as you put it, but that his ridicule and affrontry of individuals and groups from particular backgrounds that is wrong.
If someone says to woman "every time you bend over I get an erection" and she makes a complaint about it, saying "he didn't threaten to rape her" doesn't justify the original remarks that brought about fear and intimidation. Such hate speech can cause just as much damage in a variety of different ways including bullying, discrimination from and within employment, psychological harm to say a few.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is dangerous, yes, because not everyone can be like you and me where we could utilise the opportunity to dissect - perhaps psychologically or politically - the motivations that would compel a person to such ideological extremes. For most, hearing a bigot or fascist has greater ramifications as it can easily influence the ignorant who are politically compelled but have little learning just as much as it can fill people with fear and anger.
If only it were that easy. :-! You mention equal rights quite a bit but herein lies the dilemma. Is freedom and equality mutually exclusive?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I am quite confident that any crimes that may be constituted as 'bias-motivated' would fall into that category because of the clarity of the transgression. You were robbed at gunpoint by a wealthy teen from a ultra-religious cult who repeatedly harassed or followed you prior to the act and has information visible on social networking sites that he hates gay people. It is easy to try and excuse with poor examples but I assume that your intention perhaps lies in a covert fear that corruption could lead to the solidification of laws that may ultimately impact on many other freedoms that the amendments were created to afford. To a degree, this is certainly true and a risk with all laws unless there are adequate mechanisms that prevent corruption. Here in Australia, we recently enacted legislative changes that would distinctly prevent corruption from the executive branch, namely that all bills that pass through parliament must be independently assessed to comply with Human Rights principles. In a country like US where politics is heavily invested in the judicial system, corruption is a constant problem so I can see your worry.
Quoting Bitter Crank
See, in Australia you can have both. If someone said to you, "I hate fags" in private, they can. If someone publically said "I hate fags" they would be liable. There needs to be a balance.
What if a man says to a woman "you're pretty" and she makes a complaint that she felt intimidated but the man only meant it as an honest compliment? Even if a man were to be obscene in making a pass at a woman it seems that some reasonable context could be examined in court which can shed light on whether or not the remarks in question should be labeled as sexual harassment or intimidation.
On a dance floor for instance, especially depending on the kind of dancing, the every-time you bend over line wouldn't strike me as reasonably threatening. Given the fact that a dance floor is populated with many other people and potential witnesses, for instance, such a remark on it's own is not a sufficiently reasonably source of fear or reasonably perceivable as an attempt at intimidation. The point here is context matters. If the only stipulation that sexual hate-speech has been committed is that the victim feels afraid and intimidated as a result, then courts would be at the mercy of anyone with an emotional grievance resulting from any interaction.
Using an example of possibly sexually harassing words as something we ought to censor is actually a very bad example to use to make the argument for anti-hate speech laws because we already have a very detailed set of existing laws which handle issues of verbal harassment, sexual harassment, stalking, intimidation, and sexual assaults. The difficulties of trying to set proper speech standards for such dynamic, informal, and context dependent situations in and of itself is a legislative nightmare...
I'm not sure how discrimination from and within employment is facilitated by hate-speech, but there is also a rather large set of anti-discrimination law and human rights laws already on the books which are designed to handle cases of human rights abuses in the workplace (many overlap with the anti-harassment laws). There are many instances of speech that we can all agree are criminal, but we don't need to appeal to hate-speech for 99% of those instances.
Regarding the psychological harm that might be incurred as the result of experiencing ridicule or hearing an idea that makes you feel unsafe, these are the natural pangs of cognitive and emotional development in my opinion. If ideas in and of themselves make someone feel unsafe, then they've got psychological issues of their own that need sorting, and when it comes to ridicule, there's a difference between justifiable political speech which includes ridicule and verbal harassment or bullying. If I publish a client-patron anarcho-communist gift-economy manifesto I'm opening the door completely for the use of ridicule. Ridicule is often the first and last line of defense against bad ideas. Likewise if someone publicly publishes a picture of themselves on the internet and says "Am I hot?", they are opening the door very widely to ridicule and speech that we might otherwise classify has harassment. Context matters.
Quoting TimeLine
If you censor the very idea of white supremacy all you will do is give it the appeal of a forbidden fruit and increase the already inflated fear of it in others. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if liberal and progressive morals and ideals really do have merit, then we should not be afraid to put them in the ring against any opposition. But deciding that the masses at large are not capable of making sufficiently rational decisions when it comes to the finer points of governance and ideology is to throw the baby of democracy out with the bigoted bathwater. And by absolutely protecting people from the emotional difficulties and occasional harshness of the real world you will be hampering their ability to develop any real resistance to it.
If I agreed though and we sat down to write out the list of every political idea which could possibly compel someone to an ideological extreme, how large would that list be and what would it look like? What if I felt that the tenants of socialism inherently provoke some people to the ideological extreme of infringing upon my natural land ownership rights? What if I felt that irrational religious beliefs inherently lead to terrorism? That very long and immutable set of every idea we forbid would be nothing more than an expression of our own imperfect moral and material assumptions about the very uncertain future of a very complicated world, to the exclusion of all others.
Because he does it so well, and because I agree with him so thoroughly, the late great Christopher Hitchens explains:
----
Here is a more serious post.
Summary and Conclusions:
So, both political movements are guilty of this, but the Left has been more guilty of this, especially of late.
------
edit:
Our favourite nob is right again...
Indeed. It's bitter sweet for me that I am forced to give Gavin ample points here (probably because I've laughed at him too many times by now), but when he's right he's right.
I've been thinking a bit about the left right dichotomy in terms of how the correlation between the liberal/authoritarian personal rights spectrum and the collectivist/individualist economic spectrum is starting to be upset. Where once I saw the economic left associated with ideologically liberal principles now seems less certain. At the same time as the libertarian (economically conservative) right seems to be growing, a new authoritarian left is also taking shape in the form young progressive social media charged collectivists. The older liberal left (me I guess) now feels an odd kinship with the likes of Mcinnes and Farage and it makes me start to wonder whether there is some affable center we should come to in the name of actually promoting liberty.
Maybe the values of free-speech simply need to be re-learned in a new and increasingly connected world who for whatever reason was not able to digitally export them off the bat. The internet is itself a place that could be so drastically altered by draconian censorship that in some ways it's more important an issue than ever. I am just so continuously flabbergasted as to why people who I thought were like minded in this way are unable to come to grips with this reality while Nigel 'Frikin' Farage is already shouting it in exuberance from atop the Notre-Dame cathedral... It's like they're trying to change the character narrative of Trump himself from Dr Bannonstein's Igor into a sun-baked Quasimodo.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment.. if there was some governmental means by which all speech could be forced to be truthful, would we still need free speech? I've been pondering the origin of the emphasis on free speech, on the evolution of government, how a governmental form gives way to a different form...
1. There is a need to distinguish the authoritarian left from the libertarian left who support similar ideology in terms of ends, but do not use the same methods to achieve said ends. There is a difference between trying to cancel an event through direct and immediate action and trying to cancel an event by raising awareness of the event's content and having no one show up. There is a difference between saying that we should not say certain speech because it may be harmful or insensitive, and saying that we should not allow certain speech because it may be harmful or insensitive.
2. Regarding trying to get disinvites and canceling speakers to events on college campuses, I think this is where we might run into problems. It seems odd to say that aiming to get a speaker disinvited is an inherently bad action. If someone invited to speak at a college supported Nazi ideology, we hardly would bat an eye. I generally support the notion that more freedom is better. However, I understand the pragmatic view the college staff have to take and the oddity of saying a private institution should not be responsive to its members.
I am not entirely sure what this would entail. I cannot think of a thought experiment that would not lead to a situation where the justifications for free speech are applicable. Do you have something in mind?
No, because no one would have anything to say.
Do you think the masses are able to think as adults? I think history shows that widespread emotional maturity just... doesn't happen. Embracing democracy means embracing the occasional Oh Shit.
But isn't freedom of speech really more about the press? I mean.. originally? I'm thinking it's in the First Amendment because British troops confiscated printing equipment that had been used to complain about the British military.
Quoting Cavacava
Hmm... LOL.
The epistemological/intellectual aspect of conservatism, a free market for ideas, because humans are fundamentally limited and fallible.
lazy copy-paste:
"They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book "A Conflict of Visions." According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are “products” of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future. Out of this distinction come many right-left contrasts that would otherwise have no common denominator.
Rightists tend to like tradition (because human nature does not change), small government (because no leader is wise enough to plan society), a strong police and military (because people will always be tempted by crime and conquest), and free markets (because they convert individual selfishness into collective wealth). Leftists believe that these positions are defeatist and cynical, because if we change parenting, education, the media, and social expectations, people could become wiser, nicer, and more peaceable and generous." (Pinker 2002)
We identify rights when there's a need. I think the 1st Amendment was responding to a situation that doesn't really exist now. If Vagabond is right, that we should recall the value of free speech, I think that means we need to focus on what we're looking to address. Is it a looming Leftist Threat? Obviously not.
The goal of a scientist is to discover truth, but sometimes the only way to do it is by exploring hundreds of false hypothesis while in search of what works; the examples provided to us by distinct untruth often proves a didactic experience. The right to be wrong is a necessary part of trying to discover more and more truth. Cacava is quite right to say that if we could only speak truth then we would never have anything (new) to say. Nothing new would ever get discovered and nobody would be permitted to voice a disagreement if they so happened to have one.
Quoting Mongrel
It's a looming cognitive threat at it's core. Fighting brownshirts with brownshirt tactics isn't inherently a leftist threat and thankfully the majority of leftists aren't engaged in the kind of chicanery I'm criticizing. It is out there though and it is more prevalent than I would like, hence this thread.
I do think there's a slippery slope of increasingly alarming physical threats which does justify the reaffirmation of free speech values, ideally before the slipping accelerates.
Seeking to have a speaker you fear dis-invited can be wholly proper, and you can even demonstrate against and protest the speaking event and the speaker themselves without infringing on the free-speech of others (it can be stupid to do though if you only give them free publicity). But when a protest crowd decides to block entry to an event, they're infringing on the right of the speaker to hold and share their own political views, and the right of every would be listener to hear them and to judge for themselves. Once doors are physically blocked it's a short march toward even more direct physical confrontation. Storming the stage to shut down an event and throwing rocks into crowds aren't your dad's social sanctions. Given their current prevalence, are they about to bring an end to the so called great social experiment of America? No, but at what point does the creeping of this fringe behavior and political mindset into media, academia, and popular culture warrant serious redress? It's mostly the young and stupid giving a face to these nameless idiots, but as they literally and figuratively grow up their ranks will be filled by the next wave of infants, fully charged with their own piss...
The fact that this behavior happens to be coming predominantly out of the left is for me like finding cat poop in my closet (but I don't own a cat), and so in a way I feel an extra obligation to find out just where it's coming from. The threat we need to address are the causes and lapses in society which are leading to such a severe erosion of fundamental democratic principles, especially in the younger generations which are set to become the most socially interconnected groups in human history.
The first amendment would not have been overly relevant in a fresh and new free America, but the founding fathers duly recognized it's importance none the less having seen first hand what persecuting particular religions, controlling and manipulating public discourse through control of media, preventing citizens from gathering peacefully, and preventing the protest of their own government could wind up supporting in the end.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Whilst I appreciate your detailed answer, you have unfortunately misconstrued my point in use as the remarks were not an example of hate speech, but rather the absurdity to disregard hate crimes because no one was physically hurt. Violence needn't be aggravated assault and can also be emotional and psychological. But, I certainly agree with you nonetheless that it is wholly dependant on the particular circumstances; bullying legislation here in Australia requires a particular set of circumstances before it could be considered serious harassment - such as repeated behaviour that is clear and/or evidenced - that would enable the judge to ascertain the potential damage it could/has caused to the victim. Someone just yelling out absurdities once to a person is not considered bullying. Ambiguity in legislative terms is necessary to enable this judicial process to work effectively, something the positive, inflexible regulations in the amendments stifle.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Research has shown that people who have "foreign" names have a unlikely chance of getting a job interview; it is that invisible discrimination that I made reference to vis-a-vis the ramifications of hate speech in the broader context. But, certainly, yes there are a number of protective instruments that empower workplace rights.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Whilst your opinion is duly noted, unfortunately psychological harm is a great deal more vicious than mere pangs of cognitive and emotional development. Laws here have changed only recently (inclusive of my own petitioning) which we call Brodie's Law because of a young girl who committed suicide from the repeated bullying done to her by male staff. Psychological - and sometimes psychiatric - injury is serious and we cannot brush the circumstances aside and blame Brodie needed to sort out her own issues and the inevitable result was her fault. That is victim-blaming, again, your failure to see that the actions themselves are wrong despite the injury it has caused.
Prevention is absolute and we asses [depending on the legal jurisdiction] the level of impairment caused by the experience/s but tort cases often demonstrate the failure in duty of care and whether or not adequate responses were made to remedy the situation just as much as it is about whether the acts were repeated over a period of time. Laws are established for the people, to protect them and to keep bad behaviour in check and without adequate checks and balances, people and organisations would continue to cause havoc in society.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is just mere gobbledegook. It is not just about white supremacy and whether these extremists are more or less appealing is completely besides the point. Is it wrong? Yes. No.
By your own description the 1st amendment flexes to additional stipulations wherever we choose to add them. Anti-harassment laws are a good example which exist quite happily in US criminal law. If you can show that an action is a reasonable source of fear for physical safety or damage to property, that can be prosecuted. The existing laws in the end are meant to protect individuals, not broad demographic categories.
Quoting TimeLine
"Foreign names"... You mean any name that is too far deviated from what people are used to? Not: "typical names of foreigners"?. Research shows that race isn't a factor so much as the non-average nature of the names themselves. Turn out Deansandrae D'Squarius Green Jr. , Maleficent Constance, [s]Dong-Quay-Lo[/s] (he got hired), Abdulla Rahman Al-Genin and Billy-Joe Cletus Brown all get the short end of the interview stick. But if you put photos on those resumes and give everyone typical names, seems to even things out. I don't know why people don't like different sounding names, but how do you suggest we fight this? All they need to do is abbreviate their name to something common in the header, problem solved. No hate speech (subconscious thought?) laws required.
Quoting TimeLine
Experiencing ridicule is a part of life. Everyone is going to experience it at some point and we're never going to outlaw it altogether. What we do outlaw though is harassment and bullying. Quite obviously bullying and harassing women in the work place is not ridicule as a part of justifiable political speech. Nor is it merely "hearing an idea that makes you feel unsafe". I really don't get how you've taken the examples I've given of justifiable ridicule and instantly equated them with the worst sort of harassment and me with "victim blaming". We need better anti-harassment and bullying laws, or have them better enforced, not laws which rigidly outlaw words and ideas for our own protection.
Interestingly Trump would probably be with you in this. The amount of ridicule he has received over the last year or so might actually be more than any single person in such a short period of time ever in history. Surely if we outlaw all ridicule because of the deep emotional trauma that it might lead to then ridicule of Trump would at this point be the the majority of all crime committed day to day.
We can and do legislate behavior, but we ought not legislate against certain thoughts and ideas themselves, even if they can be emotionally or psychologically offensive. We can legislate the manner of their transmission and even some aspects of their content (is it harassing? Is it physically threatening?) but we air on the side of caution when it comes to outright banning the holding and communicating of certain ideas because to do so deprives us of the ability to actually understand the issues in question, thereby weakening the decisions of the public. Democracy is meant to function with a well informed public, not a sheltered one.
Quoting TimeLine
So you hereby claim glorious and honorable right of list maker who lays great foundation for ideological future of mankind?...
Once and for all defining the forever-banned speech, ideas, and thoughts we must protect the world from isn't actually something we can reasonably do.
Should we hold a referendum on that instead?
P.S(.A) If someone is harassing or bullying you, contact the police. If someone told a joke at your expense, or stated an idea you are afraid of, contact your nearest adult.
This, in turn, stipulates that the amendments themselves are unnecessary and could have once perhaps been used as a guide but now redundant amid changes to our understanding of human rights and freedoms, particularly following the Nuremberg trials. If it is indeed about protecting individuals, not only is the separation between the judicial, executive and parliamentary powers necessary to ensure that either are not corrupted or influenced - something clearly problematic in the US - but that due to the tensions of positive laws such as rights vs. freedoms, ambiguity in legal frameworks is necessary to enable common law jurisdictions to assess on a case by case basis and apply decisions according to the fundamental rule that the intent of the law itself was developed by the principle of protecting the people. This is how landmark cases here is Australia - like Mabo v Queensland - were applied by the high court and why our government continues to try and challenge it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You're still not getting it, are you? You are consistently attempting to justify pernicious acts by purporting the victims are the ones requiring flexibility and adaptation, on the contrary, it should be those that discriminate that should be adapting. It is almost a master-slave dialectic, as though the master - the far-right who you purport should be allowed to speak freely - while the slave - everyone else who you purport should adapt, the latter almost at fault for not. This is a incorrect way of analysiing the situation. How about we reverse your line of though here, that the far-right adapt by our acknowledgement of the madness of such extremism and extremist rhetoric, whereby a pluralistic and inclusive society dedicated to righteousness would ensure that it is the far-right that should adapt.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You seem to be tossing in confusion as to your position and I think that it really quite simply lies in your misunderstanding of how the legislature functions. You are holding victims partially responsible for actions committed against them and this is an attitude and a barrier that requires elimination, as you say below:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What exactly is the first amendment then? Hence the necessary ambiguity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You are still gobbledygooking, buddy.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ideological? As I said earlier, in Australia we have legislation that ensures all parliamentary bills adequately adhere to human rights principles to avoid corruption prior to being passed and changed into a law. If the separation of powers remains, corruption is minimized and laws are made by the people for the people.
So the American Constitution is just a redundant guide then because we once convicted Nazis of war crimes?...
Let's see where this goes folks...
Quoting TimeLine
I really don't get what this has to do with free speech clauses, but O.K.
Quoting TimeLine
Wait a minute, are you still talking about odd names on resumes not being selected? How do we fight against people innately not calling to interview people with names they've never heard before?
I'm just spit balling here, but hows' abouts' we silence the far right and force "different name" mandates upon employers such that they need to hire more of the most oppressed class currently in America: The differently named.
"The far-right should adapt" in this context bears the same sentiment as "send them to the re-education camps". (Better finish that cirriculum ;) !)
Quoting TimeLine
I'm ridiculing you, you know...
I realize only now that it's entirely possible that me alleging "you should contact an adult" if and when your feelings get hurt could actually cause your feelings to get hurt (what cruel irony!). Which, theoretically, could trigger the draconian law you want to be put in place that will see me physically sanctioned for victimizing you with my emotionally harmful and therefore hateful-speech.
What level of ridicule need I muster for you to consider my speech ban-worthy? Does it all depend on your subjective and emotional reaction?
Quoting TimeLine
The first amendment is the thing that tells the US government to NOT make any laws which abridge people's right to religion, or abridge their right to political opinions and to peacefully speak those opinions, for the sake of freedom, truth, and democracy.
Quoting TimeLine
How is pointing out that Trump is the largest recipient of verbal harassment in recent human history "gobbledygooking"? Care to substantiate your disagreement?
You're the one who equates any and all ridicule with land grabbing and bullying someone to the point of suicide, who equates free speech with national socialism, and is suggesting that constitutions are really just antiquated forms of guidelines from old dead slavers, but I'm the one "gobbledygooking"?
Quoting TimeLine
I'm asking you specifically for example statements or ideas (not contextually enhanced bullying/harassment) which you feel, on their own, ought to be forbidden from public speech or topics of public discourse.
But how can we be sure that banning certain ideas is really by the people and for the people if we're then not permitted to discuss the ideas in question?
Please though, which ideas should we ban?
1. pressure the venue owner to try and cancel [a fascist] event
2. Physically confronting [fascists]
3. pressuring ... employers [of fascists] to get [the fascists] fired
Of these, only item 2 could be seen as having anything to do with violence. But whether it actually does depends on the context. A non-violent demonstration, chanting slogans, is a physical confrontation, as is facing up to somebody and saying that you abhor their policies. If there is evidence of the 'antifa' movement systematically advocating violence against fascists, it needs to be brought out and discussed. I am not aware of such evidence. Rather, it is the fascists that advocate violence, as we saw in the Trump rallies where he encouraged attendees to beat up their detractors.
For free speech, only 3 is possibly relevant. Item 1 does not affect free speech because it is about removing a platform that somebody is using to broadcast toxic views. Free speech is about having no punishments for expressing views, not about providing a platform from which such views can be expressed.
Item 3 is potentially a worry, as it does imply a punishment on the employee for having expressed views. If that sort of thing is happening, I would be concerned about it. But again, context is critical. There was a case in Australia of a feminist commentator who influenced an employer to fire someone that made a vicious, public, violence-encouraging, sexist attack on her. But the key link is that the attack was made using a facebook account that publicly described the employee as an employee of that employer. Hence the employer was unwillingly associated with the attack and - IMHO - was reasonable to fire the person for bringing the employer into disrepute. The situation would have been utterly different if the employee's facebook account had made no clear connection with the employer. Indeed, the way the feminist exerted the influence was to ask the employer - 'Did you know that this person posted these comments [providing link], on an account in which he describes himself as your employee?'
Some concrete examples would very much help to determine whether there is actually any problem, or any inconsistency, in the movement against fascism.
?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, ?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So it sounds ridiculous? Yet, it is not ridiculous to say that everyone else should adapt to the rhetoric of the far right? Why and what exactly is your reasoning here? Do you sympathize with white supremacy?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Goodness. I hardly think my previous responses expressed any alleged hurt of feelings.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
As I have said several times, positive laws such as the first amendment requires ambiguity to apply common law fluidity on a case-by-case basis. It is not that freedom of speech itself that is wrong, certainly not, but the question we should be discussing rather than me having to swim through a sea of awkward remarks is whether freedom and equality is mutually exclusive? This is what needs to be discussed, rationally and with evidence.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There it is.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I guess I will need to reiterate but in this instance it may be that you failed to read what I wrote to another member in this thread, which I find understandable. I also do find it understandable that perhaps I was not using the best examples, so I will go directly to the source of law to exemplify my point.
In Australia, we have legislation - namely the Racial Discrimination Act that legally enables perpetrators of racial hate speech to legal account without flagrantly opposing freedom of speech. There needs to be a clear disproportionate harm caused by the hate speech to ever risk the human right to speak freely. The freedom to communicate - particularly on political subjects - on topics of public interest is fundamental and plays a very important part in Australian culture and democracy. One important element is that it needs to be a case-by-case - procedurally thus within the common law jurisdiction - that assesses this proportion.
Jones v Toben that convicted hate speech did so following the publication that vilified Jews by claiming the holocaust never occurred, that Jews who claim that it did have a lower intelligence and their intention is merely for financial gain. Other malicious remarks included all deaths caused by Stalin was secretly caused by Jews and since the publication is reproduced and considered public source for news, they were forced to remove the content. Similarly, topics that threaten national security are also subject to similar regulations.
Tests to ascertain whether one has breached racial vilification laws is not subjective [as in, how one person felt] but entirely objective and explicit even if there is one complainant. Considerations of community standards and the likely impact - that must be serious - would have on the community in question.It is to level or have a fair balance.
The relevant definitions can be viewed here
This is a topic of concern still and has only recently been once again raised to the public fore. I mentioned sexual harassment and bullying for a reason, particularly relating to liability and torts that involve racial vilification.
Very true. We are not entitled to hijack any platform except the top of a soap box. Specifically my concern is that by force third parties are trying to shutdown the private platforms of others. Protests, letter campaigns and the like are wholly justifiable presuming no laws are broken in the process. And it is a sad truth that people have been getting the professional axe for beliefs and statements made which wound up being severely unpopular. Even though sometimes this has resulted in the clearly unfair firing of individuals (see nobel prize winner Tim Hunt who was fired because of what he thought were funny jokes), we would be remiss to oppose it in principle. Slander, libel, and privacy laws I think are suitable for determining what kinds of letters you should be able to send to your political enemies' bosses or publish about them.
Quoting andrewk
Advocating for violence is technically criminal. You can get away with it by being vague or veiled but any pundit worth their salt won't be caught directly doing so.
What really caught my eye about Bray's interview was the part where he is describing the antifa movement, specifically about what gets headlines he says: "And so, as I’m sure you and, and the number of listeners are well aware, there been high-profile instances recently, such as in Berkeley, of trying to physically shut down events that has raised the profile of anti-fascism.". And then goes on to tacitly condone it:
I would like to resist appealing to video evidence I would probably source from youtube, (perhaps it will be inevitable), but there are more than a few recent examples of protest groups, some labeling themselves as antifa, using violence, force, and assault to disrupt and shut down the speaking events of some controversial speakers and groups.
What I will say about trump is that while he did condone violence (I mean, comon, he's an idiot: BIGLY), the extreme behavior Mark referenced is more consistently, and surprisingly, emerging from the left. Specifically young ideologically driven ultra-progressive minded students, some claiming to represent BLM, others claiming to represent ANTIFA, and many other ultra-progressive groups are carrying out such actions at large and sometimes seemingly at random. There is separation though, an inconsistency, from the academic sources of their political ideology and calls to violence or violence itself. The former serves to somewhat stir emotion while advocating for peaceful resistance, while the latter occurs in the fog of protest when emotions are in the moment further inflated and people make regrettable decisions like hurling a rock, macing a reporter, blocking entrances/exits to the event being protested, and sometimes worse.
This is in all likelihood the "instance" of "illiberal politics of social revolution applied to fighting the far right" that he was referring to. I would say this behavior in response to a mere speaking event is sufficiently similar to the original blackshirts to warrant my framing of them.
I would judge that on a case by case basis, according to how private the platform was, and the means of attempting the shutdown. If it is a private house, and the shutdown was effected by forming a barrier to entering the house and wrestling with, or striking, those that attempted to do so, I would consider that to be unacceptable. On the other hand if it were a lecture theatre and the protesters were massing around it shouting abuse or alternatively, forming a non-violent barrier in the Gandhi fashion, I would consider that acceptable.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I would consider those examples unacceptable behaviour. They are also very bad tactics, because they whittle away public sympathy for the cause.
We should bear in mind though, that almost every social movement, however worthy, has suffered from people doing bad things in its name. That's the inevitable result of the facts that (1) there is an enormous range of variation in human behaviour and (2) most social movements are not centrally controlled.
Just remember the terrible trouble Gandhi had in trying to prevent his followers from becoming violent. In the end, he failed in that endeavour, because he was up against human nature. But that didn't make his cause - the liberation of India from colonial rule - any less worthy, nor does it detract from his many achievements (including the liberation of India).
It is a matter of great regret that some hotheads get violent when protesting against fascism, and that some rabble-rousers may even seek to orchestrate a violent confrontation, but the only implication that has for the fight against fascism in general is that it makes it more difficult by leaching away public support. I cringe and mourn every time I hear of violence at a rally in support of a cause I favour.
You were appealing to the notion that since people have subconscious biases towards names that sound foreign to them we need to somehow ban or enforce speech and language laws which will reduce this bias to give a fair playing field to people with foreign names. Right?
So what you're proposing is to revoke the right to exist in society of whichever swaths of the political spectrum and their associated speech habits which you think winds up making employers behave favorably towards people with familiar sounding names? Riiiiight?
I was joking that this would entail sending people to re-education camps, which is a clever way of saying "incarcerate them for thought crime and wash their brains of their filthy ideas". It's just that this seems like something a very authoritarian government would do...
I don't sympathize with white supremacists, but I sympathize with any non physically violent group being crushed by another group through violent force in a depiction of might makes right because if we allow it to happen to them we're in principle allowing it to happen ourselves. One day, the mass offended might begin to find you or your ideas offensive and they could use your own precedents to silence you...
Quoting TimeLine
So are you saying that free speech is now obsolete because we know what should and should not be said? (for instance, the need to outlaw national socialism/racism?).
Quoting TimeLine
I simply don't condone a law that makes it illegal to say something in public that causes offense just because it's on the basis of race. Why not make it illegal to offend people on the basis of hair color? Body-weight? Height? Etc? Keep in mind if someone is actually engaged in harassment (which goes beyond merely uttering a single statement on a sidewalk) then harassment law can legally sanction them without the need for special cases of race based offense.
Being politically correct is emotionally considerate and sensitivity to the feelings of others is laudable, but to force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity that is required to spare all possible feelings sacrifices too much to preserve too little (the gaps in existing harassment law).
May I kindly suggest that you discontinue using the internet following the oral consumption of rolled hashish? :-|
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Are you talking about the riots? Because, again, perhaps since I was talking to another member you may have missed it, I do not condone it and I hardly think that discussing hate speech laws somehow means that I do. I assume from the above-mentioned that you disagree with the mob mentality? If this is what you are talking about, as in, what the rioters have done, I agree. I still think the riots were nevertheless a product of many cultural and legal failures within the United States.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Hence the Nuremberg trials; while I can see the logic in your argument, hate crimes based on race, ethnicity, skin colour, religion, gender and national origin have a higher probability than crimes against someone with cellulite on their elbows.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
People don't like a lot of things about the law and there are certainly risks. What I fail to understand here is that you are saying 'force us all to adhere to the linguistic rigidity' but is that not what the first amendment is doing?
I agree, though, and let us hope our conversation will continue under this assumption, that the mob mentality is a failure and works in contravention to 'individuality', something highly prized in the USA even though people tend to blindly move in masses, whether leftist or right-wing.
Just to get this out of the way, I will try to be straight forward: You presented an example of sexual harassment in the workplace to establish that we do regulate some speech, but you also implied that hate-speech "keeps people from employment". I pointed out that all forms of sexual harassment, and more, can be covered under existing harassment and human rights laws. You went on to point out that "Research has shown that people who have "foreign" names have a unlikely chance of getting a job interview; it is that invisible discrimination that I made reference to vis-a-vis the ramifications of hate speech in the broader context. ". Please explain what you meant by this. Was it meant as a partial justification for having broad hate-speech laws? (above and beyond the current laws of America, for example). If this is what you meant, can you explain how the mechanism of forbidding certain speech will actually change what you refer to as "invisible discrimination" for the better?
Quoting TimeLine I'm not accusing you of anything except subscription to a few bad ideas. Since you asked if my motivation for defending free speech was sympathy to white supremacy (context: I framed you as wanting to send white supremacists to re-education camp), I was simply making it clear that my reasoning is if we do violence to otherwise peaceful racists, we're actually committing a worse crime than racist speech. Whether it's by mob or by legally sanctioned incarceration, using force to revoke the right of individuals to hold opinions and to communicate them peacefully, regardless of how offensive they might be, is inherently a bigger potential threat to democracy than the potential threat of hurt feelings.
Quoting TimeLine
The definition of a hate crime is that it is based on the aforementioned collection of demographic categories, they're just instances of sufficiently offensive speech as they apply to those specific groups. But why should we have a more severe penalty for something that in your view is a much more common crime? Because ridicule for obesity is more rare than ridicule for race or gender, it somehow doesn't count or is less of a crime? Is there really that big a difference between offending someone based on race or gender and offending someone based on obesity?
Quoting TimeLine
The first amendment advocates for the very opposite of linguistic rigidity being forced upon us. It enshrines freedom of expression, for the press and the people, and goes on to establish the right to protest and petition the government for a redress of grievances. These values are the upshot of free-speech, but the downside is that sometimes hateful people say needlessly hateful things for no good reason and try to claim it protected political speech. We have many civil land criminal laws which do a pretty good job of separating legitimately harmful speech and behavior from actual political speech, and the upshot with these is that we get protection from many forms of physical and emotional abuse. But if we over-do these laws, we run the risk of doing damage to the utility of freedom of expression by over-censoring too broadly (see: obscenity in humor and vaudeville vs burlesque), or accidentally censoring something that really ought not to be censored (see: liberals in Moussilini's Italy and Hitler's Germany).
I understand you do not advocate for the kind of mob violence seen in the earlier video, but there is a kind of equivalence between someone like Milo being legally arrested for the things he says (under a hate speech law) and being a target at large for a group of ideologues who (illegally) shut down some of his speaking events; both deprive him and others of their freedom of expression and freedom to peacefully gather. I suspect that if there were laws explicitly protecting certain groups, (lesbians to name an example, due to the outrageous things Milo has said regarding them) that Milo could conceivably be arrested for speech and actions which are more than reasonable sources of offense on that basis. We both scarcely agree with Milo, if ever, but do you think provocateurs like Milo ought to be legally sanctioned for their speech in the form of fines or incarceration?
Please feel free to post that here. Censorship is central to the issue of this thread, and while the point I wished to make was slightly different, it is still more than related to the existing discussion.
Cheers!