Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it "Politically Correct"...
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 195 (816930)
08-13-2017 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by vimesey
08-13-2017 3:57 PM


The racist organisation itself has to be susceptible to legal process, just as racist individuals do.
In the US, it is not illegal to be a racist. In fact, polls of US citizens have consistently shown, that only a minority of folks consider someone who is racist to be a bad person. Accordingly, folks who preach supremacy, separatism, and hatred are not committing any crime. Such groups can proselytize and promote their agenda and expect that their activities are completely covered under the first amendment. In the case of the Virginia demonstrations, attempts to change the venues for the demonstrations by city members were found to be unconstitutional by the courts.
Now, of course, some members of those organization may have joined because they espouse violence. Heck, even the creators of the groups may feel that way, but that alone is not enough to make the group a criminal organization. And the first amendment protects speech that is not an invitation to immediate violence.
The idea, for example, that left leaning folks have been violent in the past, and therefore nobody can have permission to protest skin heads is a bizarre idea that most folks would be embarrassed to express. But the idea that hate groups cannot protest is just a less extreme version of the same idea.
Hate groups cannot advocate speech that incites violence. Tracing such violence to organizations generally requires an arduous, lengthy investigation similar to the one that eventually got some KKK organizations prosecuted and their assets seized.
But what I found completely offensive to the point where I am violating my promise to ignore Faith's posts is claiming to be with a group of protestors that includes a man who deliberately drove a car over other folks while at the same time expressing that lefties should have no right to protest. What kind of evil @#$%$ is that?
Okay. Got that out. I'm giving myself a one-week suspension from this place. Jar is right to some extent. If these folks don't have freedom of speech, then likely I don't either. I'm not going to advocate for the position these guys took, or for their right to run a car over counter protesters. But I could represent one of these dickheads in court if it came to that.
See you in 168 hours.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 08-13-2017 3:57 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by vimesey, posted 08-14-2017 1:02 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 195 (816932)
08-13-2017 6:42 PM


As usual I find a strange lack of simple intelligence in some posts by some leftists. My post ought to have been clear enough to any fair thinking person: I am with the protest against removing historical monuments, not with the group currently protesting it. Really, that's quite clear in what I said. And I'm against ADVOCACY OF VIOLENCE on either side, and in the case of the Left we're talking actual violence, not advocacy. Excuse me, I should add the car attack of course, I was only thinking of the protest itself. Of course I'm against actual violence on either side; my question has to do with organizations whose platform includes advocacy of violence. I really would deny them the right to any sort of public demonstration myself.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 08-13-2017 8:37 PM Faith has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 195 (816935)
08-13-2017 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
08-13-2017 6:42 PM


My understanding is that immediate incitement to violence - something like, "Hey, that guy there is a commie! Get him!" - can be made illegal and is in some places.
General advocacy - like, "Commies should be lynched!" - is protected speech.
Unless someone more lawyerly than me beats me to it, I might try to find some cites when I have time.

Patriotism is the excuse that countries give to themselves for their failures. — Stephen Marche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 6:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 12:21 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 21 by Diomedes, posted 08-14-2017 9:58 AM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 19 of 195 (816940)
08-14-2017 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
08-13-2017 8:37 PM


I don't think general advocacy of the kind you mention is the problem. I'm thinking of characterizing the goals of an organization as "killing Jews" in so many words. See what cites you can find that address that situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 08-13-2017 8:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 08-15-2017 8:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 20 of 195 (816941)
08-14-2017 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by NoNukes
08-13-2017 5:28 PM


Yeah, I was forgetting that in the US, incitement to racial hatred is not a criminal offence, as it is in the UK.
Worthwhile emphasising that this does not make it illegal here to have racist views, or to be a member of an organisation which has racist views as part of its world view - but the people and organisations can be prosecuted, if what they say, do or publish is held to be intended to, or likely to, stir up racial hatred.
Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

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 16 by NoNukes, posted 08-13-2017 5:28 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 21 of 195 (816953)
08-14-2017 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera
08-13-2017 8:37 PM


My understanding is that immediate incitement to violence - something like, "Hey, that guy there is a commie! Get him!" - can be made illegal and is in some places.
General advocacy - like, "Commies should be lynched!" - is protected speech.
Unless someone more lawyerly than me beats me to it, I might try to find some cites when I have time.
I think that actually summarizes things relatively well.
From my understanding, making slurs, insults, racist statements, etc. is still protected speech as it pertains to the First Amendment. As you indicated, making a direct threat against an individual or group is what essentially crosses the line. But ultimately, just a standard verbal statement regarding someone or some group does not in an of itself constitute a crime.
In other countries, it is different. Canada for example (where I grew up) actually has laws in place regarding what types of speech might land you in trouble from a legal standpoint. Don't recall all the details, but certain statements against specific ethnic groups and minorities can result in in certain legal ramifications. To note, in most cases I am aware of, the result is usually a fine. There is a wikipedia page that outlines some of the hate speech laws in Canada:
Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 08-13-2017 8:37 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:09 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 195 (816954)
08-14-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Diomedes
08-14-2017 9:58 AM


Would someone please address the situation I'm talking about. I'm not talking about general statements, wishes that some groups be dead, insults etc., I'm wondering about the legal status of an organization that has as its stated platform a statement like:
We advocate the killing of Jews.
or
Our platform is to defend white culture and kill Jews.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Diomedes, posted 08-14-2017 9:58 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-14-2017 10:15 AM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 195 (816955)
08-14-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:09 AM


civil vs criminal
It is legally protected, Thank God.
AbE:
Let me expand on that.
There is nothing criminal in such platforms.
NOW, it would be possible for an offended party "Jews in your example or non white people" to claim damage is done by such a platform and seek civil remedy. If they can convince a court that actual damage was done by such a platform then civil penalties (usually financial) could be imposed.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:09 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:32 AM jar has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 195 (816958)
08-14-2017 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
08-14-2017 10:15 AM


Re: civil vs criminal
You've offered no evidence whatever.
I still hope someone will come along who knows something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 08-14-2017 10:15 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Diomedes, posted 08-14-2017 10:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 25 of 195 (816962)
08-14-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:32 AM


Re: civil vs criminal
Faith, I found this link that I think might be able to shed some light on the topic:
http://civil-rights.lawyers.com/...-protect-hate-speech.html
The key quote from the article that provides some clarity is as follows:
quote:
In 1942, the Supreme Court said that the First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words, or statements that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)). In later decisions, the Court narrowed this exception by honing in on the second part of the definition: direct, personal insults that are so offensive they’re likely to provoke their specific target to respond immediately with violence. The Court has also said that laws can’t prohibit only some types of fighting words, like those based on racial bias (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)).
I'll freely admit that I am not lawyer. So I can't speak to the all the permutations when it comes to what speech is protected and what isn't. And I don't know enough about the platform of various hate groups. But my suspicion is that they will often choose their words carefully to be able to straddle the line as it pertains to hate speech but not fully cross it. For the two quotes you provided:
"We advocate the killing of Jews" - Technically, I believe this falls into the purview it being an insult, but not necessarily one that will immediately provoke a reaction. Also, the use of the word 'advocate' makes it more ambiguous.
"Our platform is to defend white culture and kill Jews." - This one is tricky because from my opinion, that is a direct threat. So if that is a statement they are making, verbally or in print, that may violate hate speech laws.
The above article does provide links to actual court cases and any precedents that were set. So hopefully that can shed some light on things. But it is a grey area to be sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 26 of 195 (816977)
08-14-2017 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by vimesey
08-13-2017 3:57 PM


vimesey writes:
If the KKK's official spokesperson incites violence against a racial group....
We're not talking about an official spokesman, are we? I thought we were talking about some guy in the crowd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by vimesey, posted 08-13-2017 3:57 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by vimesey, posted 08-14-2017 3:57 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 195 (816979)
08-14-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-13-2017 4:16 PM


Re: the right to demonstrate, protest etc
Faith writes:
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.
You were talking about a guy in the crowd who may or may not be affiliated with any organization. If he parrots the official position of some organization, I don't see how that organization can be held responsible. If the organization had a right to assemble before he spoke, they should still have it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 4:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 12:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 195 (816981)
08-14-2017 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
08-13-2017 4:37 PM


Re: Freedom of Speech vs Hate Speech
Phat writes:
What are the current laws regarding the distinction?
I have no idea. Of course they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In the case that I have been talking about, I don't know if the individual is even a member of any organization. If an organization is not even aware of him, how can they be responsible for his actions? How can the crowd in general be responsible for his actions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 08-13-2017 4:37 PM Phat has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 195 (816982)
08-14-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
08-14-2017 11:49 AM


Re: the right to demonstrate, protest etc
I was asking a hypothetical question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 08-14-2017 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-14-2017 12:06 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 195 (816983)
08-14-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
08-14-2017 12:00 PM


Re: the right to demonstrate, protest etc
Faith writes:
I was asking a hypothetical question.
I was only addressing what you said, not the horse that you switched to in mid stream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 1:18 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024