On Fascism and Free Speech

VagabondSpectre

I'm not a political historian, but what I do know of Benito Moussilini's fascist regime is that it was created and maintained in part by very passionate and very violent action taken at the street level. By attacking or otherwise compromising their political rivals and detractors (individuals, homes, businesses, events, cities, etc..) early fascists knew that they could forcibly advance their own agenda (or party), and did so happily because in their eyes they were standing on the highest moral ground in sight.

This boils down to the idea that in a political/ideological arena, might makes right. Although fascists throughout history have believed in the validity and moral supremacy of their own particular ideas (hence their apparent will to achieve them by any means), if everyone were to behave that way, then "might makes right" is exactly what we would wind up with.

Thus we arrive at the most common understanding of the political label itself: a state/group/person that rules their people by force; characterized by authoritarian policies and behavior. The original Italian fascists held beliefs like the immorality of abortion (or at least that it was counter-productive to national strength) and used force to make their political and moral views into a reality. They could have been pro-abortion just the same and likewise used violence and force to have that view realized. The political views of the original fascists were considered far right and religiously conservative but a part of what defined them was the anti-democratic will to actually implement them by force via typically dogmatic appeals to what they perceived as a superior or ultimate moral/political right/objective.

Fascism is therefore inherently opposed to free-speech (that is, any speech critical of the fascists) because it is the first line of defense against the implementation of it's political agenda, and so it becomes the first casualty at their hands. Under fascism free-speech was seen as an evil or immoral tool of liberalism and democracy which serves to manipulate the minds of the masses toward what they felt were somehow immoral or harmful political views and actions which detracted from their superior goals; it is summarily moral from the perspective of a fascist to silence the speech of political detractors.

Which brings us face to face with one of the great political ironies of our time: self-styled anti-fascists using force to advance their party and objectives in a way which directly undermines the fundamental principles of democracy itself: the freedom of citizens to openly express their political views and to participate in the arena and marketplace of ideas whose products we hold as the very fruits of democracy itself

Mark Bray, who holds a PhD in Modern European and Women's Gender History from Rutgers and is an "antifa" activist, described historical fascists as having organized "these paramilitary units that would terrorize their left opponents" which forced the reactionary rise of anti-fascist groups to counter them, in an interview concerning anti-fascism and free speech. Later he summarizes his position by stating:

"essentially anti-fascists are arguing that, we want a political content to how we look at speech in society, which is drastically different from a liberal take, and that this entails shutting down the extreme manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism".

He goes on to describe the state of "the American Antifa movement":

"Under that specific banner, it's still relatively new and it’s finding its way, but a lot of anti-fascist or Antifa groups have formed in different cities around the United States. A lot of what they do is researching information on local white supremacists, who they are, where they live, where they work, sometimes pressuring their employers to get them fired, sometimes making sure that if they organize private events at local venues for white supremacists, they pressure the venue owner to try and cancel the event. So that research and coalition building with groups that are affected by various forms of fascists or white supremacist violence is a lot of what's done. What gets more of the headlines is when the demonstrations come out onto the street. And so, as I’m sure you and, and the number of listeners are well aware, there been high-profile instances recently, such as in Berkeley, of trying to physically shut down events that has raised the profile of anti-fascism."

When further asked: "Physically confronting people, that's part of the strategy, right?", he replied:

"Yes, it is. It’s an illiberal politics – [laughter] - of social revolutionist applied to fighting the far right".

In Mark's view, fighting against what he perceives to be the dangerous sexism and racism of the "alt-right" and his political opponents is as justifiable as preventing a second holocaust. Ironically, like his fascist anti-forbears, he believes that because certain ideas are so dangerous that they should not be tolerated in society and should be silenced with force lest their very existence lead to tangible harm. He has unwittingly articulated and embraced that fundamental feature of fascism itself which would see it's political agenda advanced by any means, first and foremost with preventing the free speech and right to assembly of those who he broadly paints as fascist, nazi, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc... What stoked the passions of the original "blackshirts" (the first Italian fascist para-military) was in part dissatisfaction with the existing government or status quo. Driven by what they thought was enlightened understanding which could solve their social problems, they inflicted mass harm upon those who were perceived to stand in their way, and the new anti-fascist movement is advocating that we do the exact same thing for the greater good of those who would otherwise be seduced by the words of so called far-right fascists and their would be future victims.

Mark does great disservice to what he described as the defensive anti-fascist para-militaries of the 20's and 30's which sought to protect people from fascist violence and manipulation by himself advocating for that self-same aggression and violence as a primary means of pre-emptive offensive against his once and future enemies, the evil fascists (which according to him bear inexplicable similarities with windmills.)

So... If you personally believe that "punching a fascist/nazi in the face" is a morally justifiable or praiseworthy action, I'll not bother to muster opposition beyond the above, but if you happen to find yourself in a situation where you feel compelled to punch a perceived nazi or fascist in the face, take a moment's pause and ask yourself: "Is this person really a nazi or fascist?". "Do they actually support the extermination of Jews?". "Are they actually a white supremacist?". "Are they actually trying to implement their own authority by the use of violence and force?". "Would punching my political opponents in the face, trying to get them fired, de-platformed, and shutting down private political speaking events and gatherings by force actually make me guilty of the very crimes which drove the original movement upon which mine is based?". "Is that what irony is?"...

BC

VS, this is a very interesting topic, and I want to comment -- but I have places to go, people to see, and can't. I'll be back later today.

VagabondSpectre

(Some context about where this came from...)

I've been air-boating over this odious ideological cesspool for over a year now in an effort to understand it, but what caused me to suddenly write this is the recent uptick in it's severity and prevalence. It comes not from general anti-racism and anti-sexism, but rather (at least originally) from a specific and radical line of reasoning (and rationalization) which until very recently was stuck inside an academic bubble of it's own creation. I'm starting to see it like a virus that mutated to make the leap from infecting birds to infecting humans.

It begins by explaining how individual instances of micro-aggression or casual prejudice serve to perpetuate the statistical inequalities facing any given minority by contributing to a system of widespread (feelings) oppression. They don't focus on tangibly racist actions that are already illegal such as refusing customers based on race, but instead how our subconscious biases lead directly to the emotional suffering of minorities and therefore indirectly to their physical and economic suffering.

So to put this in other (their) words, when a person tells a joke which *may cause* someone to feel offended on the basis of race, gender, or identity, this is tantamount to, and the very foundation of, everything that is bad in the world, because the emotional suffering experienced by minorities as a result will inherently keep them down while reinforcing our own sexist and racist tendencies which currently prevent us from being not sexist and not racist, on the whole, as evidenced by the existence of statistical inequalities.

The dearth of genuine western racism and sexism in the post 90's world is really what forced a mutation from "don't oppress" as a mantra to "don't offend" instead, and with all the offense taking that's been happening recently it has finally found a suitable vector to spread. Now I see people equate insensitive satire with hate speech, and hate speech with the holocaust on an almost daily basis. For those so taken with these ideas, lives are on the line when a speaker shows up to their university who happens to make X Y or Z group of people feel "unsafe". Free-speech is a small price to pay when you already have the right ideas and all that remains is their physical and morally righteous enforcement.

It's perhaps even more ironic that by censoring and shutting down their ideological opponents (and anything that offends them), these individuals and groups are largely insulating their own worldview from external criticism, thereby protecting their resolve from the very thing they have unwittingly begun to destroy: liberalism and democracy.

Chany

The issue I question is whether political liberalism falls into a similar fate. For example, consider the definition of facism presented:

a state/group/person that rules their people by force; characterized by authoritarian policies and behavior. — VagabondSpectre

First, all states are necessarily centers of violence and power. States ultimately use force and the recognized monopoly on power they possess to enforce law and policy, so that part of the definition is not problematic. The next part is actually leads to an interesting discussion: liberals may have a wider area of what is allowed and is not allowed, but they still have an area and will use force, suppression, and peer pressure in order to get others to conform to their ideology. For example, there are certain things you cannot say and expect to be taken seriously within a liberal society, to the point where saying such will merit being ridiculed, publicly shunned, or, in certain instances, forced if you try to do certain actions regarding your beliefs. Ultimately, if a group with anti-liberal values or something outside the scope of currently acceptable speech starts becoming anything more than some extreme fringe of blog-posters, you can expect extreme conflict.

The extreme libertarian must, ultimately, be brought to conform within liberal society. We can let the libertarian publish books and maybe hold a couple of meetings, but, at some point, there are core liberal values that must be enforced. The act of speech may be very much protected within liberal society, but everything else and protection from reactions of speech are not protected. I can lose my job, be blacklisted, be shunned by the community, and be forced to cooperate with authoritarian policies under force of punishment. This is how things are: there is a scope of acceptability within every society. There are values that liberal society enforces and if you step over the line, you are out, whether that line is legal or social.

And that is what people are arguing for today. They are saying the scope of acceptability within our society should shift, just like we all try to argue for in our own way. There are statements you just couldn't say today that you could fifty years ago. You could call racial groups ethnic slurs or openly state things that we would clearly find racist by any reasonable standard, and you would have a plethora of defenders.

BC

I'd like to limit the use of the term fascism. Full disclosure: I like the all-purpose slur "fascist" or "crypto-fascist" as much as the next leftist. But as a matter of fact, "fascism" arose at a particular time and place, and has specific characteristics:

• An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant political views and practice.
• The term "Fascism" was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. — dictionary definition

The fascist symbol--a "fasces": the axe in the middle of the bundle of rods. There is nothing "fascist" about the fasces: It's old, and appears on the wall behind the Speaker of the House of Representatives and was on some American coins (at least). It goes back to Roman times. "Fascism" was invented in the 20th century, in Italy.

There are right wingers, authoritarians, nationalists, intolerant leaders, and so on who, as objectionable as they might be, are NOT fascists because they are in favor of democracy, are not slavishly obedient, don't believe in the inherent superiority of one ethnic group, and so on. This is to say, not everything objectionable is fascist, and fascists might not be all that objectionable, at least over dinner and drinks.

VagabondSpectre

↪Chany

Indeed in every society there is a shifting set of norms but as I would define it beyond the common meaning, "fascism" itself can originate from the desire to shift or progress these norms but manifests as the distinct anti-democratic willingness to physically enforce it as an immutable national and moral standard.

It's of course a host of complex things which drives the adherents of any particular political platform toward what I view as the crux of fascism, and when it comes to some modern liberal crowds, the ingredients seem to be there all in ample supply.

Take healthcare for example: One ideologue believes that the ACA makes medical coverage more expensive, and therefore oppose it on liberal grounds. Another ideologue believes that trying to dismantle the ACA will also make their medical coverage more expensive, and therefore oppose it on liberal grounds (and they might even both be right). But while from both their perspectives they are thetrue liberal, the moment one of them shows up the the other's political rally with the intention of silencing their political speech and to use violence to achieve this, they've gone ahead and attacked the very foundation upon which liberalism depends, and have re-enacted precisely the actions that made the original fascists distinct from other right/conservative parties.

VagabondSpectre

↪Bitter Crank

Hear hear! Let's stop labeling absolutely everything fascist, or at least somehow make it distinguishable from anything "anti-progressive" in appearance.

Really my intention with this thread is to point out the glaring hypocrisy among the groups who do seriously overuse the term "fascist". The behavior of those who constantly use the term is more akin to what made the fascists actually dangerous in the first place than the rhetoric of those who they label as fascist nazis is actually fascist or nazi-esque..

Belief in their own moral superiority and dissatisfaction with the status quo is the emotional catalyst that seems to allow them to go beyond what the tenets of democracy permit, and in that singular regard they become more like the actual fascists than any other existing political group. I'm not a fan of labels of this kind myself, but given they've already bastardized the word, I simply cannot resist re purposing it as a rhetorical tool against them

BC

In Mark's view, fighting against what he perceives to be the dangerous sexism and racism of the "alt-right" and his political opponents is as justifiable as preventing a second holocaust. — VagabondSpectre

Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. Construing a racist joke as tantamount to lynching, or a sexist joke as rape, and so on are exaggerations. Another method of the AcLibs is to reduce the colorful, nuanced world into black-and white, not even employing half-tones of gray. Black and white is of course much simpler than 1000 shades of gray.

True enough, many AcLibs have an authoritarian streak, though I haven't seen any signs lately exhorting the people to obey Noam Chomsky. Being somewhat authoritarian doesn't make them fascists. It does make them democratic trip hazards.

A third method of AcLibs is to employ terms that can only have vague meaning (like "micro-aggression") and then treat them (when convenient) as if they were precise.

Fascism is therefore inherently opposed to free-speech (that is, any speech critical of the fascists) because it is the first line of defense against the implementation of it's political agenda, and so it becomes the first casualty at their hands. — VagabondSpectre

Hate-speech codes, safe spaces, trigger-word warnings, and all that are not highly compatible with "free speech". The politically correct AcLibs are maybe more interested in free speech than your typical fascists, but truth be told, people of all stripes dislike hearing too many dissenting opinions. Mostly we think we are obviously correct in our views, and other people who disagree with us are either stupid, crooked, or both.

BC

↪VagabondSpectre

All true.

But then, there are some fascists or crypto-fascists around. I'd label one of my brothers-in-law as one: he's extremely conservative; is a fan of the southern confederacy; he's pro-military (former submariner), doesn't like blacks, gays, or leftists; is rigid in his thinking; and so on. For crypto-fascists, it's the combination of traits that adds up to crypto-fascism--not an explicit political philosophy. He isn't an unpleasant person (as long as you don't tangle with him on politics, religion, and the like).

There are white-supremacists (or other supremacists) who are explicit in the political philosophy who are, clearly, fascists. Fortunately, at this point, they aren't all that common. Given an economic and social collapse, I'd expect a lot more actual fascists to form and emerge.

VagabondSpectre

Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. Construing a racist joke as tantamount to lynching, or a sexist joke as rape, and so on are exaggerations. Another method of the AcLibs is to reduce the colorful, nuanced world into black-and white, not even employing half-tones of gray. Black and white is of course much simpler than 1000 shades of gray. — Bitter Crank

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens when you shovel black and white AcLib rhetoric semester after semester onto young impressionable minds; they believe it. The AcLib pundits themselves seem to know better than to actually call for or condone violence, and they (seem to) understand that free-speech is is a necessary part of a liberal democracy, but at large and out on the street violence is justified on the spot with slogans like "our lives are on the line" under an extreme all or nothing mentality.

The AcLib will at length explain to you how micro-aggressions like edgy jokes normalize subconscious xenophobia and attitudes which otherizes and excludes minorities in a self-perpetuating of cycle of inter-generational bigotry and systemic oppression, but out in the field an insensitive joke or action is perceived as the final swing of the axe. Minor defeats become the validation of their worst fears, and the zeal really seems to be showing of late.

But then, there are some fascists or crypto-fascists around. I'd label one of my brothers-in-law as one: he's extremely conservative; is a fan of the southern confederacy; he's pro-military (former submariner), doesn't like blacks, gays, or leftists; is rigid in his thinking; and so on. He isn't an unpleasant person (as long as you don't tangle with him on politics, religion, and the like). — Bitter Crank

I can only dream of a world where people use language in a way that actually and effectively communicates substantive meaning. <3 Thanks for that momentary window into a linguistically sane arena :)

I want to freeze your in-law in carbonite and use him to repeatedly bludgeon the intellects of this crowd of ideologues which seems to be growing at an uncomfortably large rate. I had better be careful though, as metaphorical violence such as that might warrant a bit of the old actual-violence visited upon by these oh so humble droogies.

BC

Hear hear! Let's stop labeling absolutely everything fascist, or at least somehow make it distinguishable from anything "anti-progressive" in appearance. — VagabondSpectre

A question: Was the USSR a fascist regime?

It is is usually not labeled as fascist. It was, in someways, successfully multicultural. That is, Muslims and Christians were both suppressed. "Russians" weren't called the master race, but a lot of Ukrainians were treated very, very badly. Joseph Stalin killed a lot of people for political purposes (millions). Stalin was authoritarian (as was the entire Communist bureaucracy). What the Soviets were not was conservative, religiously oriented (as Spain and Italy were), and focused on one ethnic group.

BC

I want to freeze your in-law in carbonite and use him to repeatedly bludgeon the intellects of this crowd — VagabondSpectre

Sure. Send somebody round to collect him.

VagabondSpectre

↪Bitter Crank

If i recall correctly, Stalin and the Bolshevics hated the fascists at one point or another, the context being that the Fascists advocated for typically right wing/conservative economic policies and structures, so in that regard they were the outright ideological enemy. (As you rightly say, they were not The fascists).

When it comes down to it I'm not at all certain what the actual Nazi sentiment towards democracy as a whole was (democratic dictator is an oxymoron certainly). Having emerged within what was possibly perceivable as a democratic state (a constitutional republic?), they managed to do the kind of authoritarian control by force (arguably subverting democracy) that we have since come to associate most heavily with the term fascist. In contemporary use it seems the ideological particulars of a group are less important than the style and manner in which they are implemented for people to describe it as "fascist".

In that sense the USSR does bear many hallmarks of a fascist authoritarian state: killing (en masse) of political enemies, unquestionable rule from the top, violent enforcement at the bottom, and the dogmatic belief in the one correct way of doing things. Semantically speaking, I would indeed label the USSR as fascist (in 2016) presuming that this connotation of specifically anti-democratic rule-by force can be garnered rather than "whatever Don Trump is" being the grab bag.

↪Bitter Crank

SEEEE!? THIS IS WHAT AN ACTUAL FASCIST LOOKS LIKE!!!

BONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!!!!!!

VagabondSpectre

↪Bitter Crank

Hate-speech codes, safe spaces, trigger-word warnings, and all that are not highly compatible with "free speech". The politically correct AcLibs are maybe more interested in free speech than your typical fascists, but truth be told, people of all stripes dislike hearing too many dissenting opinions. Mostly we think we are obviously correct in our views, and other people who disagree with us are either stupid, crooked, or both — Bitter Crank

I think it does take some humility and understanding to accept that you live in a world where you don't know everything and don't always know best, and that other people ought to have a right to their say as you to yours. When widespread dissatisfaction is prevalent though, this democratic tenant is tested by moral counter-argument (and rightly so in my opinion).

It becomes a question of whether not prevailing conditions are so bad that they warrant the subversion of democracy itself. Through specific lenses, from within specific social and academic circles, in the media and on the streets, many are finding an answer to that question, or at least beginning to, and I see free speech as the unhealthy canary about to signal more and more violence to come ...

Cavacava

↪VagabondSpectre

I'm not a political historian, but what I do know of Benito Moussilini's fascist regime is that it was created and maintained in part by very passionate and very violent action taken at the street level. By attacking or otherwise compromising their political rivals and detractors (individuals, homes, businesses, events, cities, etc..) early fascists knew that they could forcibly advance their own agenda (or party), and did so happily because in their eyes they were standing on the highest moral ground in sight.

Sounds a lot like the Tea Party lot, they won in the end. Now Dems are going back to the town hall, I wonder if they can be confrontational.

Neo Fascism seems to be very concerned about Nationalism, but now their target population are Muslims and other immigrants, which is ironic given that the USA was settled by immigrants. Today's liberals seem obsessed with political correctness to the extent that they are willing to censor those that ignore their rules. Here is Bill Maher's interview with Milo Yiannopoulos last night. As discussed both of these men were censored at Berkeley (although Maher was able to give his commencement address and the possibility of Yiannopoulos talk caused a riot) which has to be an accomplishment of sorts.

I thought Maher handled him well.

VagabondSpectre

↪Cavacava

You know it's entirely possible that without Milo, Trump would never have won the election? (let's strike that from the record though :D)

It was pretty interesting to see Bill and Milo in the same room, let alone actually attempt to have a conversation where agreements were had. Bill has always been opinionated in the extreme and while I have not agreed with his many of them in recent years he at least understands the importance of meeting ideological opponents on an intellectual level, and the hypocrisy and danger of meeting them with force or violence instead.

Milo did seem to get away with one interesting point: free-speech now appears to be a conservative value more than a liberal one (despite Trump and his thoughts on slander law). That some proponents of the left are so willing to turn on their own and "de-platform" them rather than actually come to consensus or clarification through discussion and debate is a pretty good example of what he meant by this. The obsession of some with political correctness is what I think largely creates the moral superiority complex these de-platformers appeal to in order to feel comfortable doing so. The group feelings based mentality that some use as an approach to progressivism is close to the heart of why serious political discussion has become so difficult of late. If someone gets hurt feelings then according to the PC crowd a crime has been committed, and are therefore they are unable to realistically discuss any controversial issues whatsoever. (unless, (for some reason), the controversy happens to lay at the feet of white-cis-straight-males).

What I would say to the PC crowd is this: "Paraphrasing Hitchens: Fuck your feelings. If you don't show up to the debate, you lost it. If you shut the debate down because your feelings are hurt, you lost it. If you're unable to expose yourself to the positions of your political opponents from your safe spaces, grow up or shut up. What's worse than Trump-tea-toadling bible belters is the sight and revelation of your mewling infancy when you suddenly realized hand-size jokes and "'cause oppression" wound up being less than persuasive arguments. Fuck your feelings because they get in the way of truth, and you fucked that up so bad this time around that we had to instead settle for the lunacy that now pervades every day of our lives".

VagabondSpectre

I was tempted to cite this in my OP as an example of the term Fascism being ironically mis/over-used in contemporary culture, but I thought quoting a PhD holding historian anti-fascist describing his own fascistic platform was better because it referenced tangible ideology.

But, since this is too big a story and too relevant not to mention, here it is: The (most) popular Youtuber Felix "Pewdiepie" Kjellberg has been openly labeled as a nazi-supporting anti-semite by the wall-street journal, who upon contacting Disney armed with about a dozen or so jokes involving hitler pulled without context from a few of Felix's 3000+ youtube videos, managed to get their partnership dropped

In each and every case Felix was not in fact supporting anti-semitism or spreading Nazi propaganda, he was very obviously attempting to make humorous and valid social commentary/satire which more often than not seems to have hit it's mark. Robbed of all context however, and having successfully maneuvered Disney and other sponsors to drop "Pewdiepie", the WSJ decided to publish the hit piece and give it the title : "Disney Severs Ties With YouTube Star PewDiePie After Anti-Semitic Posts", which in reality should have read "Once respected journal alienates the entire (mostly youth) fan-base of one of the most popular internet and social media figures of all time by publishing blatantly desperate and libelous misrepresentation of political views". Not your typical style of headline, but the WSJ have dug themselves into a not-so-typical hole by doing this, along with many other sources are demonstrating journalistic incompetence by parroting the same misrepresentation...

Even J.K Rowling is tweeting about it as if the labels of "anti-semite" and "nazi" and "fascist" are in any way deserved or are going to stick. I'm no fan of Felix but I feel absolutely forced to rally behind him right now because the attack on him was so swiftly and haphazardly decided, and so unreasonable in measure, that's there's no telling who will be next, or for what reason.

This is kind of a new height of un-glory for the WSJ. Three bored "journalists" with the hundreds of hours required to review Felix's entire channel have potentially managed to sour a massive chunk of our youth's perception of (once) respected mainstream media with the single solitary tool of lying by omission by making technically true statements 100% devoid of all relevant context.

VagabondSpectre

In a way the "Pewdiepie fiasco" is part-in-parcel with the new culture of manufactured outrage which thrives on a kind of PC-virtue economy.

If we ignore the blatantly misleading framing of the original WSJ article, they're still putting forward the idea that depicting objectionable content whatsoever regardless of context is still a punishable offense (which if true also describes their own article for reposting the allegedly anti-semitic content). This is very much along the lines of that whole micro-aggression hypothesis that has us censor any speech which might offend any minority group in a never ending game of ever inflamed and ever growing emotional sensitivity.

The call to de-platform a popular youtuber because of some edgy jokes is just the latest, but one of the most ridiculous, in a series of cultural missteps that mainstream thought leaders have been taking.

TimeLine

Well, one of the methods of the academic liberals (AcLibs) is to exaggerate. — Bitter Crank

I think anarchists and marxist rioters are being labelled academic liberals. I assume the position is the assumption that the anti-fascist movement is ironically committing the same aggressive advances of the Italian fascists that engender a moral supremacy to their own ideals. But the real question here is whether freedom of association and speech of any group - call them fascists or white supremacists - that endorses hate against particular races or the like, should be permitted.

And perhaps - being Australian - I am unable to ascertain the historical and certainly deep rooted influences that would enable people to burn crosses in front of an African-American families' home (R.A.V., Petitioner v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota) which is a clear symbol of hate, while criminalising some peculiar offences such as topless sunbathing and yet seems downright passionate about justifying obscene political messages by hiding behind the first amendment; for instance, in Ohio v. Wyant that confirmed the unconstitutionality of bias-related crimes.

The is one of the reasons here in Australia that arguments relating to whether or not we should have a Bill of Rights often proceed with great caution because some ambiguous human rights positions require legal flexibility to avoid erroneous conclusions; we want to ensure freedom of speech and association whilst additionally protecting the citizens of any race, ethnicity, skin-colour and nationality from hate speech and/or incitement to hate.

So, do you think the protests are an outcome of your legislative failures?

VagabondSpectre

But the real question here is whether freedom of association and speech of any group - call them fascists or white supremacists - that endorses hate against particular races or the like, should be permitted. — TimeLine

Being Canadian, what I define as hate-speech mostly has to do with knowingly inciting hatred or violence against a particular religious or ethnic group. It's legal to hold the belief and proclaim that the white race is superior (whatever that might mean), but it is illegal to advocate for actions (which may or may not be based on such a controversial belief) of hatred or violence against a specific group.

"Hatred" here is a bit tricky, but more or less the hate speech laws are about protecting people from harmful hate speech, which specifically does not include something like mere ridicule or affronts to dignity. People like Milo who are excellent provocateurs certainly ridicule and affront the dignity of many individuals and groups, but what Milo has not done is actually advocate for any violence of any kind. For me a part of the whole issue is that people are asking questions like"is it moral to punch nazis in the face?" and "Ought we to permit white supremacists and other groups who do not share our moral values the right to public assembly and free speech?" as if the people they're actually talking about (Trump, Milo, et al.) are genuinely fascist or nazi or white supremacist, let alone the fact that they're preparing to throw democracy out the window by doing so.

Everyone seems to have jumped the gun of actually trying to understand their political opponents and straight to the moral question of whether we need to use physical force against them in a sudden desire for pre-emptive-thought-police-brutality. Is hearing a bigot or fascist speak and seeing their ideology for what it is really so dangerous?

If we should censor opinions of white supremacists, why? And what else should we be censoring on those grounds as well?

BC

I think anarchists and marxist rioters are being labelled academic liberals. — TimeLine

Anarchists and marxist rioters on the one hand, and academic liberals on the other are quite distinct. For one, the number of the former are very small. The latter are far more numerous and whatever they might say, they are upwardly mobile professionals who aren't going to put their lifestyle at risk by throwing rocks through bank windows.

"Serious marxists" came to the conclusion a long time ago that when it comes to political violence, the state is much better at it than anybody else and taking on the police, national guard, or army is a good way to end up dead in the street.

And perhaps - being Australian - I am unable to ascertain the historical and certainly deep rooted influences that would enable people to burn crosses in front of an African-American families' home (R.A.V., Petitioner v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota) which is a clear symbol of hate, while criminalising some peculiar offences such as topless sunbathing and yet seems downright passionate about justifying obscene political messages by hiding behind the first amendment; for instance, in Ohio v. Wyant that confirmed the unconstitutionality of bias-related crimes. — TimeLine

The contradiction between not prosecuting cross-burners and arresting nude sun bathers arises from unrelated sources. The problem with the ordinance in the cross-burning case was that it was overly comprehensive, forbidding protected political speech:

Whoever places on public or private property, a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance]

It isn't relevant to the law, but the "cross burning" was an extremely inept performance by 1 teenager, not a dozen adult Ku Klux Klaners doing a "proper" cross burning.

Laws banning public nudity, nude sun bathing, recklessly exposed genitalia, and such have altogether different roots. One root is a common and long-standing squeamishness about sexual parts. This isn't unique to the US. Another root is the collective sense of propriety. It isn't proper for some people to remove all of their clothing in public where other people are not doing so. It's impolite. A third root is dislike of homosexuals who seem to be the most likely to remove their clothes or recklessly expose their genitalia in public to facilitate lewd, lascivious, polymorphously perverse sexual purposes. And what about INNOCENT CHILDREN observing adult sexual organs!

So, contradictions abound.

So, do you think the protests are an outcome of your legislative failures? — TimeLine

No, I don't think the recent political protests (such as in Berkeley, California) are the result of legislative failure.

People engage in protest activity for various reasons, some of them far from straight-forward. Generally, though, people become politically active around economic issues (directly or indirectly).

Tensions between groups in society, friction, rifts, upheavals, and so forth generally have economic causes. Blacks, gays, and women, for example, didn't/don't demonstrate because they aren't getting good press or because they aren't winning enough Oscars. They demonstrate because they feel they are getting the short end of the economic stick. Whites don't want blacks to move into their neighborhoods because their main piece of wealth -- their homes -- will be devalued, even if that is somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy. Workers don't like seeing too many immigrants who will be competing with them for jobs and wages. Poor blacks don't like seeing gentrification because it raises rents and/or taxes and reduces the stock of affordable housing in a given area. Nobody wants to see half-way houses for released felons in their neighborhoods, nobody wants a large garbage burner anywhere near them.

Sometimes people demonstrate on behalf of others, or engage in vicarious struggle, when they have no skin in the game. Such is the case when white, middle class and above, college students join Black Lives Matter demonstrations and "lay their lives on the line" [sic] along with their recently acquired black brothers and sisters. Frankly, I don't believe them. When they graduate from school and pursue whatever profession they choose, they are not going to continue showing up at BLM demos. They will be living in nice enclaves with their own kind -- which is only reasonable. If they move to the slums it won't be in solidarity, it will be as urban pioneers leading the gentrification charge.

A few decades back, in the early days of AIDS, some straight people suddenly wanted to identify with the suffering and oppression of gay men. My reaction at the time was "Go find you own oppression, damn it, and leave mine alone." Allies are one thing, parasites are something else.

The anarchists and marxists -- or whoever the hell they were -- who were rioting, throwing rocks at big windows, spray-painting walls, and so forth were going for a free ride on the free-speech bus. The rioters may have disliked the guys speaking at Berkeley, but their small rioting was pretty much guaranteed to have adverse consequences. ("Infantile adventurism" the old time communists called it.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with destruction of private property during a riot. BUT, it has to be for a good reason, and it has to contribute to a larger cause. Such is not usually the case. Riots are very blunt instruments; way too blunt. For instance... IF during an anti-war riot some property belonging to the manufacturer of cluster bombs or landmines was wrecked, as part of the action to end an illegal, unpopular, and possibly illegal war using landmines and cluster bombs, that would be fine. But wrecking the same property during a women's march against Trump would be absurd, stupid, and counterproductive.

TimeLine

Anarchists and marxist rioters on the one hand, and academic liberals on the other are quite distinct. For one, the number of the former are very small. The latter are far more numerous and whatever they might say, they are upwardly mobile professionals who aren't going to put their lifestyle at risk by throwing rocks through bank windows. — Bitter Crank

Quantity has no bearing over the amount of noise a small group of anarchists and marxists can make, I can assure you. I have never been fond of the academic leftists and I have never appreciated the smug conservatives either as both appeal to methods of a peculiar kind that contributes unfavourably to rational progress. I was battered and beaten when studying graduate political science by marxists, conservatives and the academic leftists that tore my thesis design apart as I stood sandwiched between the tussle of the three attempting to convince me which method I should conform to. I ultimately dropped out mostly from the isolation I felt. The worst of the three, though, was the Marxist who constantly insulted and degraded 'me' when I opposed taking his suggested routes, even went so far as to ostracise me from conference funding and publically insulted me at graduate meetings. The academic leftists and conservatives are at least bearable.

The contradiction between not prosecuting cross-burners and arresting nude sun bathers arises from unrelated sources. The problem with the ordinance in the cross-burning case was that it was overly comprehensive, forbidding protected political speech — Bitter Crank

This is the precise problem, though, the question of whether the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was - though unconstitutional - wrong? These questions have been pondered on the subject of international human rights laws and whether one can legislate core human rights instruments on subjects - such as cultural rights - without it paradoxically creating the very problems it seeks to avoid. In Australia, we have - rather appropriately in my opinion - avoided a Bill of Rights and instead adopted legislative changes that protect core human rights principles whilst at the same time enabled the judiciary the flexibility to remain fair through the separation of powers, something not done fairly in the USA.

The discourse on how the gesture was admirable undermines the importance of fairness on both common and legislative grounds and this hard, positive and equitable approach needs to be tempered by notions of fairness.

Comparatively, one can think that restricting hate speech is a type of affirmative action. What do you think?

t isn't relevant to the law, but the "cross burning" was an extremely inept performance by 1 teenager, not a dozen adult Ku Klux Klaners doing a "proper" cross burning. — Bitter Crank

From memory, there was more than one but nevertheless this is really diverting the argument from the point; whilst it may be considered an isolated incident, there are many other causal factors that need to be considered by such an act, including what led to it as much as the ramifications of it that would inevitably broaden the demographics. The US has a consistently high record of hate crimes, Bitter, as you are likely well aware.

It is interesting that you say that the laws banning nudity - a considerably logical law to have - has different roots namely that of the repulsion one experiences witness body parts; but, isn't it just as repulsive, repugnant and disgusting witness a cross being burned on the lawn of an African American home?

Sometimes people demonstrate on behalf of others, or engage in vicarious struggle, when they have no skin in the game. Such is the case when white, middle class and above... Allies are one thing, parasites are something else. — Bitter Crank

Being fake has its benefits both socially and within the employability market, something clearly seen in the competitive field of law. To see me 'downgrade' my intelligence by working with young, disadvantaged refugees after receiving academic accolades in a law degree that could have enabled me a financially rewarding career confused the many people who pretended to care about worldly affairs, human rights and even animal rights only because the 'good' image they create enabled them this employability and social power. Sometimes, even corporates mock them, like the veggie burger from McDonalds appealing to vegetarians, a capitalist food chain that is environmentally destructive both in terms of clear-cutting forests to agriculture cows that happen to produce massive amounts of Co2 emmissions and play a wonderful part in destroying not just animals but people too?

There is nothing inherently wrong with destruction of private property during a riot. BUT, it has to be for a good reason, and it has to contribute to a larger cause. — Bitter Crank

This is where I disagree in multiple ways. I do think it is wrong destroying private property, but I do not think the cause for the riots was not for a good reason. It was, it was necessary, but not to that extreme. I think the tactical advantages of behaving in that way failed to see how it fed directly into the fascist agenda by people - even intelligent ones like you - thinking twice about the leftist cause. There is a great deal of hate crimes, discrimination, violence and bigotry that can clearly espouse why these protests should take place and/or working toward the prevention of hate speech.

Cavacava

↪VagabondSpectre

Milo did seem to get away with one interesting point: free-speech now appears to be a conservative value more than a liberal one (despite Trump and his thoughts on slander law). That some proponents of the left are so willing to turn on their own and "de-platform" them rather than actually come to consensus or clarification through discussion and debate is a pretty good example of what he meant by this. The obsession of some with political correctness is what I think largely creates the moral superiority complex these de-platformers appeal to in order to feel comfortable doing so. The group feelings based mentality that some use as an approach to progressivism is close to the heart of why serious political discussion has become so difficult of late. If someone gets hurt feelings then according to the PC crowd a crime has been committed, and are therefore they are unable to realistically discuss any controversial issues whatsoever. (unless, (for some reason), the controversy happens to lay at the feet of white-cis-straight-males).

Neo-fascist utilize absolute liberal values such as free speech to 'de-platorm' liberal biases inserting their own spin on these values as viable alternatives (patriotic speech versus 'treasonable' speech), which enables them to escape open censure and gives the general population a definitive versus nebulous direction. The transformation of values in this manner reminds me of religion, and perhaps main stream religions are essentially fascist, where fascism's emphasis on race becomes religion's emphasis on membership.

It is interesting to note that one of Trump's main goals is to overturn the Johnson Amendment, which

The amendment affects nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax exemptions,[which are subject to absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of tax-exempt status if violated.Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office. The Johnson Amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, not just religious 501(c)(3) organizations.

(Wikipedia)

The arguments for and against this amendment revolve around free speech as an absolute right versus the separation of Religion from Politics. The pragmatic political right sees it as a way to channel church/charitable funds into their coffers with no disclosure and at the same time enable pastors to extol their political values.

[As an aside, I think it is interesting to note (this is ongoing) that the contentious state of affairs that surround Pope Francis's liberal attitudes within the Catholic Church are now surfacing. Recently posters went up in Rome with an image of Francis scowling and the following:

“Ah Francis, you’ve taken over congregations, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals…but where’s your mercy?”

CNA 2/6/17

Then not 10 days later, a fake newspaper with a very conservative content concentrating on Francis's equivocation on divorce (the Conservative's view of Francis' policy) was distributed around Rome.]

Emptyheady

BC

Quantity has no bearing over the amount of noise a small group of anarchists and marxists can make, I can assure you. I have never been fond of the academic leftists and I have never appreciated the smug conservatives either as both appeal to methods of a peculiar kind that contributes unfavourably to rational progress. I was battered and beaten when studying graduate political science by marxists, conservatives and the academic leftists that tore my thesis design apart as I stood sandwiched between the tussle of the three attempting to convince me which method I should conform to. I ultimately dropped out mostly from the isolation I felt. The worst of the three, though, was the Marxist who constantly insulted and degraded 'me' when I opposed taking his suggested routes, even went so far as to ostracise me from conference funding and publically insulted me at graduate meetings. The academic leftists and conservatives are at least bearable. — TimeLine

I'm sorry you had such a wretched experience in graduate school.

I think there is a difference between "real-world" and "campus based" marxists. Real-world marxists are usually not academically oriented, usually tend the sacred fire of an old socialist organization (Communist Party-USA, Socialist Workers, Socialist Labor, socialist something or other...) These are the marxists I'm most familiar with. They are usually a pretty decent group of people--not terribly effective, though.

My information about campus-based marxists is mostly second-hand. The thing about campuses (as you know) is that there are snake pits in many departments, from business administration to dance. Get a bunch of ambitious, highly competitive people together to fight over limited resources and some marginal issues and a snake pit will form.

the question of whether the Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance was - though unconstitutional - wrong? — TimeLine

I am not a fan of 'bias-motivated" crime ordinances.

People have a right to certain things: equal access to public educational opportunities; access to employment for which they are qualified; equal access to a standard level of health care; access to equal public accommodations (transportation, restaurants, hotels, etc. entertainment), and so on. These rights can be readily upheld by straightforward law-enforcement.

"Bias motivation" is not necessarily clear from the start. Was I robbed and beaten at gun-point because I was gay, or was it because I looked like I might be worth robbing? Was the man shot because he was black, or because he seemed to behave in a dangerous manner? Was the woman raped because she was female, white, and alone, or was it because she was a communist, atheist, lesbian?

The crimes committed against these example-persons are bad enough. Frankly, I don't care whether I was robbed and beaten because I was gay, or because I looked like I might be worth robbing. I would deeply resent the beating and robbery, either way.

Comparatively, one can think that restricting hate speech is a type of affirmative action. What do you think? — TimeLine

I don't think of hate-speech-restrictions as affirmative action.

I would rather live in a society where it is permissible to say "I hate fags" than live in one where it is illegal to say "I hate fags". I want to be free to express my opinions, and if I am free to say what I think, others should be similarly free. We have limits on free speech at the extreme edge: We are not free to encourage everyone who hates fags to get together and actually target and kill any gay men they might know of, or suspect. The limit here is on conspiring to kill people, not on hating fags. We are not free to engage in conspiracies to commit crimes--even ones involving no bias at all -- like robbing a bank.

VagabondSpectre

↪Cavacava

Giving non-profits the ability to act as a tax free campaign finance dump is a great way to make a mockery of the free speech we do currently have while simultaneously undermining the very reason we give non-profits tax exempt status in the first place. The conflict of interest between a non-profit doing work/favors for a politician who could then return them is obvious, but another problem is that this could easily circumvent any existing campaign finance law designed to balance elections toward a scale other than the deepest pockets win. super-PACS seem to do a good job of this already though(I think without the tax exempt status) so it's not as if this kind of tool is not already at the disposal of those who can afford to use it (or as if big money in elections is not a problem).

I cannot recall too many examples of the right calling out "treasonous speech", but this is certainly along the very same lines as the left using the "hate-speech" argument in order to try and have their political opponents censored. While I do agree with the principle of censoring someone who broadcasts "Hey let's all go kill these gays at this place and at this time" or "Here's how to comprise North-American ICBM defenses ... ...", but the risk we constantly run is when our own biases have us use these labels when it's not apt or accurate to do so. Saying "I hate Jews" is hate filled, contemptuous and entirely contestable, but it's not reasonably perceivable as a threat to anyone's safety, and it's not feasible to cultivate a society free of hate by legislating the emotions, even if irrational, that people happen to feel. Likewise saying "I hope the president fails" could somehow be described as a treasonous desire, but it is not a treasonous action nor in any way facilitates treason.

Both in the case of expanding free speech rights to non-profits and corporations, or attempting to contract free speech rights along the lines of moral sensibility, the intent and purpose of free-speech in a democratic and liberal society is undermined. People seem to opportunistically embrace these pitfalls when they happen to temporarily align with immediate political interests on both sides. Notably on the right with a desire to politically empower non-profits like churches because they mostly align with the party platform (although this is already an issue on both sides, just not on the left as an actual ideological position (the left opposes big money in politics in rhetoric only)), and notably on the left with the labeling of opposition as hatred fit to be physically confronted rather than intellectually/ideologically challenged and overcome. All I can say is that in all such cases we need to recognize and understand the fundamental importance of free-speech if we're to protect it as a democratic function from our own immediate biases.

As it relates to my intent with this thread, the contraction of speech (rather than the over-expansion of it) is more in line with the intolerance that typified the original fascists. Both are a threat to the successful functioning of democracy, but specifically in address to those who believe they oppose fascism while simultaneously silencing by force those who they disagree with, it might only take a look in the mirror to disarm them.

VagabondSpectre

↪Emptyheady

I'm somewhat familliar with Gavin, and many other Youtubers as well; it's an interesting cross-section of popular culture. Gavin is one of the more outlandish pundits who cater to young conservatives (MGTOW and MRA crowd specifically IIRC). He's more or less a hipster amalgam of some liberal and some conservative values whose primary interest is protecting his man-flare/ (I took a moment to wiki him for more, turns out they call him: "the Godfather of Hipsterdom".... LOL!)

He sometimes rants about how kids should be learning how to build tables instead of playing video-games, but he's not a complete idiot. It's very easy for him to be a reactionary in what he perceives as the war on free speech given that his niche is oft branded as bigoted and intolerant by the outrage savvy proponents of the overly passionate left.

TimeLine

Apologies for getting back to you so late :-#

"Hatred" here is a bit tricky, but more or less the hate speech laws are about protecting people from harmful hate speech, which specifically does not include something like mere ridicule or affronts to dignity. People like Milo who are excellent provocateurs certainly ridicule and affront the dignity of many individuals and groups, but what Milo has not done is actually advocate for any violence of any kind. For me a part of the whole issue is that people are asking questions like"is it moral to punch nazis in the face?" and "Ought we to permit white supremacists and other groups who do not share our moral values the right to public assembly and free speech?" as if the people they're actually talking about (Trump, Milo, et al.) are genuinely fascist or nazi or white supremacist, let alone the fact that they're preparing to throw democracy out the window by doing so. — VagabondSpectre

Hate speech is a form of violence; you do not need to experience physical violence and the impact of hate speech can injure a person psychologically and emotionally. In Australia, we have a plethora of legal protections such as racial vilification laws under the Racial Discrimination Act that does not limit any form of "insulting, humiliation, offence or intimidation of another person or group in public on the basis of their race" to just expression through words, but also prohibits the use of "singing and making gestures in public, as well as drawings, images, and written publications such as newspapers, leaflets and websites" and must do so only in public. Most human rights legislation provides legal exemptions from the prohibitions to enable 'room' to ensure that assessments do not result in an absurd conclusion - that is, if the offender acted reasonably and in good faith, judges have the capacity to assess the intentions, circumstances and impact to confirm whether they are culpable. So, it is not about 'advocating violence' as you put it, but that his ridicule and affrontry of individuals and groups from particular backgrounds that is wrong.

If someone says to woman "every time you bend over I get an erection" and she makes a complaint about it, saying "he didn't threaten to rape her" doesn't justify the original remarks that brought about fear and intimidation. Such hate speech can cause just as much damage in a variety of different ways including bullying, discrimination from and within employment, psychological harm to say a few.

Is hearing a bigot or fascist speak and seeing their ideology for what it is really so dangerous?

If we should censor opinions of white supremacists, why? And what else should we be censoring on those grounds as well? — VagabondSpectre

It is dangerous, yes, because not everyone can be like you and me where we could utilise the opportunity to dissect - perhaps psychologically or politically - the motivations that would compel a person to such ideological extremes. For most, hearing a bigot or fascist has greater ramifications as it can easily influence the ignorant who are politically compelled but have little learning just as much as it can fill people with fear and anger.

TimeLine

These rights can be readily upheld by straightforward law-enforcement. — Bitter Crank

If only it were that easy. :-! You mention equal rights quite a bit but herein lies the dilemma. Is freedom and equality mutually exclusive?

"Bias motivation" is not necessarily clear from the start. Was I robbed and beaten at gun-point because I was gay, or was it because I looked like I might be worth robbing? Was the man shot because he was black, or because he seemed to behave in a dangerous manner? Was the woman raped because she was female, white, and alone, or was it because she was a communist, atheist, lesbian? — Bitter Crank

I am quite confident that any crimes that may be constituted as 'bias-motivated' would fall into that category because of the clarity of the transgression. You were robbed at gunpoint by a wealthy teen from a ultra-religious cult who repeatedly harassed or followed you prior to the act and has information visible on social networking sites that he hates gay people. It is easy to try and excuse with poor examples but I assume that your intention perhaps lies in a covert fear that corruption could lead to the solidification of laws that may ultimately impact on many other freedoms that the amendments were created to afford. To a degree, this is certainly true and a risk with all laws unless there are adequate mechanisms that prevent corruption. Here in Australia, we recently enacted legislative changes that would distinctly prevent corruption from the executive branch, namely that all bills that pass through parliament must be independently assessed to comply with Human Rights principles. In a country like US where politics is heavily invested in the judicial system, corruption is a constant problem so I can see your worry.

I would rather live in a society where it is permissible to say "I hate fags" than live in one where it is illegal to say "I hate fags". I want to be free to express my opinions, and if I am free to say what I think, others should be similarly free. We have limits on free speech at the extreme edge: We are not free to encourage everyone who hates fags to get together and actually target and kill any gay men they might know of, or suspect. The limit here is on conspiring to kill people, not on hating fags. We are not free to engage in conspiracies to commit crimes--even ones involving no bias at all -- like robbing a bank — Bitter Crank

See, in Australia you can have both. If someone said to you, "I hate fags" in private, they can. If someone publically said "I hate fags" they would be liable. There needs to be a balance.

VagabondSpectre

If someone says to woman "every time you bend over I get an erection" and she makes a complaint about it, saying "he didn't threaten to rape her" doesn't justify the original remarks that brought about fear and intimidation. Such hate speech can cause just as much damage in a variety of different ways including bullying, discrimination from and within employment, psychological harm to say a few. — TimeLine

What if a man says to a woman "you're pretty" and she makes a complaint that she felt intimidated but the man only meant it as an honest compliment? Even if a man were to be obscene in making a pass at a woman it seems that some reasonable context could be examined in court which can shed light on whether or not the remarks in question should be labeled as sexual harassment or intimidation.

On a dance floor for instance, especially depending on the kind of dancing, the every-time you bend over line wouldn't strike me as reasonably threatening. Given the fact that a dance floor is populated with many other people and potential witnesses, for instance, such a remark on it's own is not a sufficiently reasonably source of fear or reasonably perceivable as an attempt at intimidation. The point here is context matters. If the only stipulation that sexual hate-speech has been committed is that the victim feels afraid and intimidated as a result, then courts would be at the mercy of anyone with an emotional grievance resulting from any interaction.

Using an example of possibly sexually harassing words as something we ought to censor is actually a very bad example to use to make the argument for anti-hate speech laws because we already have a very detailed set of existing laws which handle issues of verbal harassment, sexual harassment, stalking, intimidation, and sexual assaults. The difficulties of trying to set proper speech standards for such dynamic, informal, and context dependent situations in and of itself is a legislative nightmare...

I'm not sure how discrimination from and within employment is facilitated by hate-speech, but there is also a rather large set of anti-discrimination law and human rights laws already on the books which are designed to handle cases of human rights abuses in the workplace (many overlap with the anti-harassment laws). There are many instances of speech that we can all agree are criminal, but we don't need to appeal to hate-speech for 99% of those instances.

Regarding the psychological harm that might be incurred as the result of experiencing ridicule or hearing an idea that makes you feel unsafe, these are the natural pangs of cognitive and emotional development in my opinion. If ideas in and of themselves make someone feel unsafe, then they've got psychological issues of their own that need sorting, and when it comes to ridicule, there's a difference between justifiable political speech which includes ridicule and verbal harassment or bullying. If I publish a client-patron anarcho-communist gift-economy manifesto I'm opening the door completely for the use of ridicule. Ridicule is often the first and last line of defense against bad ideas. Likewise if someone publicly publishes a picture of themselves on the internet and says "Am I hot?", they are opening the door very widely to ridicule and speech that we might otherwise classify has harassment. Context matters.

It is dangerous, yes, because not everyone can be like you and me where we could utilise the opportunity to dissect - perhaps psychologically or politically - the motivations that would compel a person to such ideological extremes. For most, hearing a bigot or fascist has greater ramifications as it can easily influence the ignorant who are politically compelled but have little learning just as much as it can fill people with fear and anger. — TimeLine

If you censor the very idea of white supremacy all you will do is give it the appeal of a forbidden fruit and increase the already inflated fear of it in others. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if liberal and progressive morals and ideals really do have merit, then we should not be afraid to put them in the ring against any opposition. But deciding that the masses at large are not capable of making sufficiently rational decisions when it comes to the finer points of governance and ideology is to throw the baby of democracy out with the bigoted bathwater. And by absolutely protecting people from the emotional difficulties and occasional harshness of the real world you will be hampering their ability to develop any real resistance to it.

If I agreed though and we sat down to write out the list of every political idea which could possibly compel someone to an ideological extreme, how large would that list be and what would it look like? What if I felt that the tenants of socialism inherently provoke some people to the ideological extreme of infringing upon my natural land ownership rights? What if I felt that irrational religious beliefs inherently lead to terrorism? That very long and immutable set of every idea we forbid would be nothing more than an expression of our own imperfect moral and material assumptions about the very uncertain future of a very complicated world, to the exclusion of all others.

Because he does it so well, and because I agree with him so thoroughly, the late great Christopher Hitchens explains:

Emptyheady

↪VagabondSpectre

I linked this particular video because he addresses the crux your post in a clever way.

----

Here is a more serious post.

Summary and Conclusions:

Speaker disinvitation attempts from 2000 to 2016 were most likely to come from the left of the speaker.
These disinvitation attempts from the left occurred most often for controversies over racial issues, views on sexual orientation, and views on Islam.
Speaker disinvitations due to issues related to abortion almost exclusively came from the right of the speaker, at religious institutions.
Speaker disinvitations due to views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occurred almost equally from the left of the speaker and from the right of the speaker.
With the exception of 2006, the first decade of the new millennia saw a roughly equal number of disinvitation attempts from the left and right of the speaker. Beginning in 2010 an uptick in disinvitation attempts from the left of the speaker has occurred.
Disinvitation attempts from the right of the speaker have a higher success rate.
When disinvitation attempts are unsuccessful, moderate and substantial event disruptions are almost exclusively from the left of the speaker.

So, both political movements are guilty of this, but the Left has been more guilty of this, especially of late.

------

edit:

Our favourite nob is right again...

On Fascism and Free Speech

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions