I guess, though I would hope sexual orientation would be protected (I treat it as such).
I once had a receptionist tell me she wasn’t comfortable dealing with a specific client. She showed me his “Megan’s List” page and it was pretty shocking. I talked with the guy, explaining that my employees were uncomfortable being in his presence due to his criminal record. He accepted that, left, and never returned.
I’m not one of those people who believes that democracy in America is about to be replaced by fascists. I’m not advocating for panic or severe restrictions of the first amendment. But I do advocate for stronger laws against hate speech as a way to set a more clear tone of what is or is not acceptable in a more just society. Tolerance of neo-nazi/racist speech in no virtue to my mind.
And you think criminal charges are the appropriate remedy?
You contradict yourself. In this post,
you telepathically arrived at the conclusion that I was discussing providing Constitutional protections for individuals when I have not proposed or discussed any such law or court decision.
It is legal. That does not make it right.
No. I am not “fine” with firing contract employees. I have less sympathy for a person who is the “face” of a company who takes actions that will harm that company. “Face” people get fired all the time for posting nude photos, showing disrespect for their employers’ products or services, or bringing personal or family issues to the public’s attention If one takes a job where one is the “face” of a company, one must know that one’s public actions are limited. The dishwasher in the back kitchen or the mechanic in a service bay or the janitor has not agreed to that restriction and I see no moral reason to punish that person for expressing opinions–hateful or not. People have been fired for expressing personal beliefs about the permission or prohibition on abortion for years.
“Disrepute” is legal because nearly every state is “at will.” However, it is often just a lazy way for a manager to dispose of a person they do not like. I make no suggestion that any laws be changed, I simply find such firings to be malicious actions that should not have been carried out.
“Acceptable in Society” could have been applied to the mores prevalent in the United States circa 1915. Again, we’re back to the question of just who gets to set the standard for “fair”, “decent”, “for the good of society”.
It’s ironic that progressives struggled for a century or more to liberalize (in the original sense of the word) society’s standards in the face of conservative/reactionary imposed values, doing so in the name of tolerance, freedom of thought, conscience and peaceful speech. Only once they got those it was deemed insufficient; so now the left is championing the imposition of their values and the relentless persecution of those who disagree with or oppose them.
Sometimes it’s hard to escape the impression that all along what they really wanted was not impartial justice, but victory. Power, it seems, is only evil if someone other than you has it.
In the most egregious cases, yes.
We have laws addressing just such issues. They have evolved and will continue to evolve shaped by social change and demand. I don’t understand what you find so unusual or upsetting about this idea.
That’s not how I see it. From my point of view, progressives continue to drive society out of the dark ages by promoting tolerance and justice for all. Hate speech, while protected by the first amendment in the US, is anathema to tolerance. Laws can and should be improved to address it in an effort to continue to progress towards a more just society.
It don’t know what kind of progressives you interact with personally in your daily life, but the above does not reflect my views, nor the views of progressive thought that I’m familiar with.
Just heard someone call these Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist/KKK groups: Vanilla ISIS.
Clever and apropos.
I don’t think democracy in America is about to be replaced by fascists either, and I recognize that other country’s laws differ and they are still arguably a free people. I prefer how the US handles it, and would even push it further eliminating the concept of a hate crime at all. But I accept that reasonable people may disagree.
I believe in free speech, even speech I abhor. I do like to think that we as a people are better, more just, more tolerant, more principled when we do not resort to force to impose our ideals.
Tomdebb: to clarify your stance for me, take this hypothetical situation: it’s found out through social media or whatever that a non-face cog of the company is a virulent racist. In reaction, customers start staying away from the company, and encourages others to do the same, on the logic that a company that employs such a person probably sympathizes with his views. The company owners, tired of explaining over and over that they don’t (and not being believed regardless) fires the guy because he is personally costing them business.
Who has done morally wrong things here? Is the company obligated to take a profit hit on this stance?
Could not agree more. Does anyone really, honestly think that banning or restricting the speech of proponent of an ideology that is primarily attractive to young, not-fully-socialized males is going to do anything but increase the attraction of that ideology to that demographic group? Really?
Plus, banning ideas? In the age of the Internet??? Please.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: as with Bricker in the recent health care thread, you’ll have to offer some sort of comfort and aid to minorities if you decide to tell them that their personal safety is not as important as nebulous federalist principles. If they believed that the powers that be gave a damn, that’d be a different thing, but obviously, they don’t, especially with Trump in power and some of the crap red states have pulled lately.
Bit of a rhetorical question… Do you think those people in the 1930’s Weimar Republic looked back on those times and thought to themselves that despite everything they were a better, more just, more tolerant society for letting the fascists enjoy free speech?
I suppose it could be said that early on they didn’t have the foresight to know just how horribly things would turn out. But we do, don’t we.
This is not censorship of what you can think or discuss in your own home or post on the internet. It’s laws that put limits on what you can do and say in public.
I think the people in the 1930’s Weimar Republic had greater problems than hate speech by itself. If it becomes true threats, violent acts, etc., well, I’m also very supportive of the 2nd amendment.
My feeling is that if things get to the point of “true threats and violent acts” by neo-nazis, it’ll be already too late. I find it hard to believe you’re seriously suggesting 2nd amendment remedies.
The Pit is where the action is.
Good luck making any head way with that point of view down in that cesspool.
I agree with Bone. We can use reason and the strength of our civil institutions to counteract most extreme ideologies.
So what you’re suggesting is that rather than using the law to curb criminal actions by neo-nazis and the like, you prefer anarchy with a side of random, reckless murder?
I think the charitable interpretation of this is the assumption that the neonazis have already completely infiltrated the government at every level.
For example - the person that drove the car into people - it would be appropriate to stop that person with deadly force. People protesting, white supremacists, etc. engaging in speech alone, that’s fine. I think the country and people are strong enough to withstand hateful speech.
I’m in favor of using the law to curb criminal actions of anyone. Hateful speech isn’t criminal, so the law should not curb those actions.
I’m saying, let people express hateful ideas and not criminalize it. People retain the right of self defense and if that speech transforms into threatening or violent actions, then people should respond appropriately. Being armed for defense in case of sudden violent conflict is part of what the 2nd amendment is all about. If the police are there to address it, all the better.
We clearly come from different political positions but I don’t know you to be a foolish person based on what I know of your posting history.
That’s why I’m surprised to hear you advocate for people exercising 2nd amendment rights in the middle of a protest. Stop and think about what kind of carnage would likely result:
Too fantastic to have happen or entirely possible scenario?