Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 5:13 PM
419 online now:
DrJones*, frako, Larni, PaulK (4 members, 415 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,904 Year: 27,510/21,208 Month: 1,423/1,714 Week: 266/365 Day: 35/73 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   Is it "Politically Correct"...
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13313
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1 of 195 (816905)
08-13-2017 10:48 AM


...to call Robert Ray a Nazi?


"The heat here is nothing compared to what you're going to get in the ovens," shouted Robert Ray, a writer for the white supremacist website Daily Stormer. "It's coming," he spat.

BBC

From the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally where some of the marchers were carrying swastika banners.

tweeted by J K Rowling


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by vimesey, posted 08-13-2017 12:10 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 2 of 195 (816907)
08-13-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
08-13-2017 10:48 AM


You can get into all sorts of debates about what a National Socialist was or is. It's easier just to call him scum.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 08-13-2017 10:48 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 195 (816908)
08-13-2017 12:26 PM


There is no right of "peaceful assembly" when a group advocates violence of any sort. The white supremacists with their threatening of violence to Jews among others, should be banned from public demonstrations. I don't understand why such a group would be allowed a public forum at all as they were in Charlottesville.
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 08-13-2017 12:33 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(4)
Message 4 of 195 (816910)
08-13-2017 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
08-13-2017 12:26 PM


There is a Constitutional Right of Free Speech and Free Assembly. It is the speech that we most disagree with that requires our protection.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 12:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 12:57 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 178 by ramoss, posted 08-20-2017 10:19 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 195 (816912)
08-13-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
08-13-2017 12:33 PM


I don't know how the law is worded with respect to violent speech but I thought that free speech is limited by the rule that "you can't falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater." Threatening to kill Jews as one of the crowd did in an interview I heard in my opinion ought not to be allowed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 08-13-2017 12:33 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 2:18 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 6 of 195 (816919)
08-13-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
08-13-2017 12:57 PM


Faith writes:

Threatening to kill Jews as one of the crowd did in an interview I heard in my opinion ought not to be allowed.


If "one of the crowd" made threats then he may be subject to prosecution but the crowd can not be held responsible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 12:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 2:52 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 7 of 195 (816920)
08-13-2017 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
08-13-2017 2:18 PM


True, but it sounded rather like a platform statement that could possibly be found in official statements of their organization. He listed three objectives he imputed to the gathering as a whole, something about protesting the Leftist attack on white culture and something else I don't remember and the third was "killing Jews." If his statements do represent the published objectives of the organization, my question is whether an organization that threatens violence to the Jews, or to anybody, has the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 2:18 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 3:20 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13885
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 8 of 195 (816921)
08-13-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
08-13-2017 2:52 PM


Faith writes:

If his statements do represent the published objectives of the organization, my question is whether an organization that threatens violence to the Jews, or to anybody, has the rights granted by the Bill of Rights.


I would say that other members of the organization should still have their rights. Authorities should only be able to deal with individuals who break the law; they should not be able to interfere with freedom of assembly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 2:52 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 08-13-2017 3:57 PM ringo has responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 4:16 PM ringo has responded
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-13-2017 4:37 PM ringo has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 9 of 195 (816923)
08-13-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
08-13-2017 3:20 PM


But (assuming the organisation itself is capable of being prosecuted (in English law, I think they would have to be a legal person - I don't know how it works in the States)) surely the organisation itself has to be prosecuted at some point. If the KKK's official spokesperson incites violence against a racial group, and is prosecuted and then replaced as spokesperson, by someone new, who repeats the incitement, how many times should the incitement continue, before the KKK itself is prosecuted for what its spokesperson says ?

The racist organisation itself has to be susceptible to legal process, just as racist individuals do.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 3:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2017 5:28 PM vimesey has responded
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 08-14-2017 11:44 AM vimesey has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 10 of 195 (816924)
08-13-2017 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
08-13-2017 3:20 PM


the right to demonstrate, protest etc
The question I'm asking is whether an organization with stated objectives of violence toward anyone would legally be granted a right to protest or demonstrate in public. Those gatherings normally require legal permission, don't they? So what is the law regarding the right to assemble for such an organization? I'm not asking about the legal rights of individuals.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 3:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 08-14-2017 11:49 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 195 (816925)
08-13-2017 4:31 PM


This is a complicated situation in some ways. I'm with the group protesting the removal of historical monuments, I'm against the Leftist position on that, and also am aware that it's been Leftist protests that have turned violent in the last few months, and that there are Leftists who openly advocate such violence too. I'm against their right to demonstrate as well. This just raises a lot of questions for me about the right to public assembly, protest, demonstrate and so on, by any group that advocates any kind of violence against anybody. For me the advocacy of killing Jews should take away the rights of the protesting group to any kind of public display or forum, but my opinion may not be shared by the law; the point is I don't know.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10079
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 12 of 195 (816926)
08-13-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
08-13-2017 3:20 PM


Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech
Authorities should only be able to deal with individuals who break the law; they should not be able to interfere with freedom of assembly.

What are the current laws regarding the distinction?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 08-13-2017 3:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by 14174dm, posted 08-13-2017 4:46 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2017 4:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 08-14-2017 11:55 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
14174dm
Member
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-12-2015


Message 13 of 195 (816927)
08-13-2017 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
08-13-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech
I think that if people within the organization break the law using the resources of the organization, there is the possibility that the assets of the organization can be seized as part of a criminal or civil trial.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-13-2017 4:37 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5295
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 14 of 195 (816928)
08-13-2017 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
08-13-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech
Businesses can have religious beliefs here now: I would think they (and organizations) should be subject to arrest.😏

What play was this from?
-Let's kill all the Jews! And the bicycle riders!
----Why the bicycle riders???!
-Why the Jews?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-13-2017 4:37 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-13-2017 5:24 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29622
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 15 of 195 (816929)
08-13-2017 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Coragyps
08-13-2017 4:56 PM


Re: Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech
Unless there is some law broken I'm not sure what legal jeopardy incurs.

In the US, TTBOMK Hate Speech is not illegal or prohibited, thank God.

Saying that Jews should be killed is no different than Trump saying protesters at his rally should be taken out on a litter. I see absolutely no difference between what Trump did and what was said at the Charlottesville rally.

Behavior though can incur legal criminal ramifications. If the group prepared to round up Jews or attacked Jews or burned a synagogue then those individuals could be arrested.

But there are also civil sanctions possible. The organization could be sued in civil court if a actual case could be made that they caused physical or emotional trauma to an identified party. That was the tactic used to sue the KKK in the past which allowed financial sanctions against the organization and it's leaders and pretty much shut it down for a half century.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2017 4:56 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017