You don’t seem to understand that your argument might have any validity if you could actually show a group’s ideas were inseparable, literally, from the promotion of killing and torturing some targeted group. IOW rather than throw the unbacked aside that I’m ‘incorrect’ about the KKK’s ‘avowed mission’, you should IMO bolster the actual potential in original your argument by showing how it’s actually true the KKK’s ‘avowed mission is torturing and killing blacks’, literally for all the words and the verb tense. That would actually be an argument to distinguish them from BLM in terms of their right to express their ideas.
Otherwise you’re right I don’t understand, how your argument has any relevance to the debate. Nobody AFAIK argues the set of ideas under the BLM banner is comprehensively and literally a call for violence therefore a candidate, perhaps, to be banned. But if violent protesters under a general banner of BLM commit the same crimes as protesters under a WS or even specifically KKK banner, they should be dealt with the same way. That’s not equating their ideas, it’s equating their actions, when/if they are the same. BLM seems a complete non-sequitur to even bring up in this particular debate. I don’t see what it establishes that’s relevant.
I appreciate what you’re both saying but you seem to be alluding to partisan politics here. And while you don’t have to try too hard to convince me that Trump owes much of his success to support from the alt-right (neo-nazis, nationalists, KKK, etc…), I still want to believe that the majority of the country condemns that kind of philosophy and would be in favour of establishing laws that restrict public expression of hate speech.
As I’ve noted earlier, there are democratic societies in which such laws have been enacted without demonstrable loss of freedom of expression. Am I naive to think this can be accomplished in the US?
It’s possible, for sure, but if it happens, it’ll be over my opposition, and I suspect the opposition of the ACLU. It’s not that either of us likes or wants more ‘hate speech’, but that we think the risks (to free speech) entailed by such a move are too great.
Given that it would probably take a change to / repeal of the First Amendment, or at the very least a fairly radical departure from centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence by the courts, I think it’s quite unlikely to happen here.
You’re not wrong, except that some of those individuals would likely have been in jail and unable to march at the rally for some of their prior posts/speech.
You may be correct that my proposal wouldn’t do much, but I’d sure love to see it given a try. If the edges of their rhetoric were filed down, I wonder how many fewer angry, stupid white male assholes would be inspired to take a car and run it into people who disagree with them.
I guess I should amend what I said earlier - it is not practically possible to craft an amendment to suppress the speech rights of disfavored groups.
Because of the determined resistance of First Amendment absolutists like myself, as well as the natural tendency to expand to cover groups disfavored by someone else.
As in ‘OK, now that we have established the principle that it is OK to ban speech for some groups. I will support a ban on Nazi flags in return for a ban on burning the American flag. If the white supremacists can’t carry weapons to a rally, then the leftists can’t carry weapons to a protest. No nasty pictures of aborted fetuses, and also no signs that say “Fuck Trump”. Fair’s fair, after all.’
I don’t mean to belabour the point, but I mean to belabour the point…
In very practical terms, if laws are enacted that say hate speech (‘from all sides’, if that helps) is prohibited in public venues (eg. no permits are granted to groups promoting discrimination to march in public spaces), how does that significantly impinge on anyone’s right to otherwise assemble in protest or support of various other causes currently protected by the first amendment?
Absolutely. People should not come armed to a peaceful protest.
I see nothing wrong with either of these two.
With all due respect, it seems to me you’re envisioning a much stricter abrogation than I would advocate for.
If we were to “ban” ideologies that fundamentally espouse violence we would be banning all statist ideologies and some anarchist ones leaving exclusively anarcho-capitalism as the only legal political “ideology”. Of course then there would be no mechanism to ban, in its current usage, anything at all.
The Nazis and Klan members arrange to meet at some site in order to protest something. They know that the lame stream media can not resist broadcasting such an event.
The violent looney left groups can’t get to the same location fast enough. They are drawn like a moth to a flame. Why do they need to be there? To peacefully COUNTER-protest as violently as possible, of course.
Both sides brought weapons. Both sides tossed their usual rehetoric at the other. Both sides expected violence. Both sides intended to create violence where none existed.
OTOH, in spite of the violence, injury, and even death, the lame stream media couldn’t stop themselves from blaming Trump??? The hatred of the LSM undermines their own credibility. I guess there simply wasn’t enough action in Charlottesville, Va. to suit the agenda of the LSM.
They are not impossible to ignore. And restraint is far from difficult. The problem is too many folks act like Trigglypuff when they hear stuff they don’t like. Note to the world: don’t engage with already exceedingly marginalized and nutty groups.
When those groups break the law deal with them. Bam! Problem solved. Western civilization doesn’t need a rag tag band of counter radicals, who look like they are role-playing Gamma World, seeking to engage in street fights. It doesn’t help.
Wrong. They might be possible to ignore if they were an insignificant minority whom nobody took seriously. In the 1980s, there was a Klan rally near my home in the South. It was on a Saturday morning. There were two middle aged losers dressed up in the usual white robes and pointed hats, passing out literature to passersby. They hardly got any attention. That’s possible to ignore and laugh at.
In 2017, we have a president who got elected with the help of white nationalists. It’s no accident that many of those who were interviewed and photographed participating in this event wore MAGA hats and expressed support for Donald Trump. No coincidence that David Duke supports Trump. I could go on but I haven’t the time and frankly I don’t have the need to really prove what we already know, which is that white nationalism has gone mainstream and become a potent political force.
Again, the people who attend these types of rallies are expressing aggressive and hostile ideology that can no more be ignored than if Ahmed Choudary were roaming in the streets of Minneapolis, Detroit, or New York with hundreds of young bearded men chanting “Islam will dominate the world”. These nativists could have chosen to waive the American flag; instead they chose to display symbols of the lost causes of the confederacy and Nazi Germany, both of which were regimes that sought to promote an ethnic majority and dominate all others. Their intent isn’t to express grievances but to promote change – and that begs the question: what kinds of change are they advocating? Are they advocating more rights for people? It would seem they could have chosen different symbols for that, right? It appears more than obvious that they change the seek isn’t to promote their own rights, but to question the rights of others who are not white. And do they expect this sort of change to occur peacefully? Do they expect minorities to peacefully arrive at some Eureka moment when they will realize “Oh wow, it really would be best for everyone if we just moved to the back of the bus like good little n----s.” See, that’s the point you’re not getting. You can talk about freedom because the Constitution and laws of this country have allowed whites to enjoy freedom to the fullest extent possible, which cannot be said of others who have been killed merely for asserting that they have equal protection under the laws as the Constitution clearly states.
We are talking about an ideology that primarily attracts young men in the their late teens and early 20s. Ban it if your goal is to make it more attractive to that demographic.