|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it "Politically Correct"... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. orOur platform is to defend white culture and kill Jews.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've offered no evidence whatever.
I still hope someone will come along who knows something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 996 From: Central Florida, USA Joined: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vimesey writes:
We're not talking about an official spokesman, are we? I thought we were talking about some guy in the crowd.
If the KKK's official spokesperson incites violence against a racial group....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I have no idea. Of course they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What are the current laws regarding the distinction? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I was asking a hypothetical question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I was only addressing what you said, not the horse that you switched to in mid stream.
I was asking a hypothetical question.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024