Yeah based on the way that mayor responded, i am sure he’s doing everything he can to keep the 5% non-white people of his city safe… because he came off like he couldn’t care less than he does.
I used to share this view. Now I realize the majority of our population apparently has no brain.
The mayor is reprehensible. More ‘good people on both sides’ bullshit. You at minimum condemn the actions of these redneck fucks, and voice support allowing the school to ban the flags outright, and crack down on racist behavior. The sidestep is tacit endorsement.
They have the right to say abhorrent things, but not to do illegal things. The government can’t take action against them for speech, but private citizens certainly can and should.
Trump has kind of proven that, hasn’t he.
And we, as citizens, ultimately have the power to decide that hate speech in all forms should not be tolerated. Again, I used to think people had that right. I’ve changed by mind.
I’m not saying it is illegal. I’m saying it should be.
We don’t allow businesses in this country to discriminate against gender or race or religion when they hire people. We can decide as a nation that we are not going to tolerate hate speech in our society, that we will not tolerate those who would threaten to deny the same freedoms they enjoy to others.
And if people don’t want to be part of that society, they are free to get the fuck out, because we don’t need them.
Who decides what is hate speech? The congress, the SCOTUS, the President…? Do we really want to do that?
And would your hate speech against them be illegal?
That is an objectively terrible idea. Who decides what hate speech is? The government? You know who the President is right now? You trust Jeff Sessions to determine what you can and cannot say publicly?
As a private citizen, you are free to let people know through your words and legal action:
Once the government starts doing it, you are on a path to tyranny. There is a reason that free speech is the 1st Amendment.
edit: Scuzz was first and more succinct.
Kind of like how they define… hate crimes. I’m not saying we should have hate speech laws, but there should be no tolerance for that viewpoint from the general public.
Germany begs to differ. Besides, we already are.
Also, yelling “fire!” In a crowded theater is also something one says. So is, “I’m going to kill you”. All we have to do is to be brave enough to say that threatening someone else’s existence is not ok.
Those are things you do, not things you think or say. And they are notoriously hard to prove, because you have to prove intent as well as action. Very, very different.
This is the part of the mayor’s response that hits my BS meter:
“I’m not saying I’m supporting it or for or against it…"
I get the free speech part of the argument, but right here, why not say, “I condemn their actions” before continuing? Why try to straddle that line?
Yeah, it works great for Germany. I guess that explains why the far right isn’t resurgent there.
Are they on a path to tyranny or not? That was your claim.
Neither of your arguments are valid limits on speech:
Popehat responds to your “fire in a crowded theater argument”:
Also your imminent threat argument:
In true Internet fashion, I’ll resort to the dictionary for the definition of tyranny: “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.”
Yes, the arbitrary banning of political speech is a step towards tyranny. That’s true in Canada, the UK and many other countries. I’m happy that German has been relatively restrained in prosecuting such cases, but the potential for abuse is high.
If the choice is between Canada’s “tyranny” or what is happening in this country right now, I’ll take Canada. I would rather and try to make our country a better place for all people, even if it will be difficult and we might fail, than to continue to sit back and do nothing and say “This is fine” while the fire burns all around us.
I generally believe that the government should not be in the business of regulating speech.
We, as individuals, should be regulating speech by ostracizing those who espouse abhorrent views.
And the first step that we as individuals can do, is stop allowing people to try and take neutral positions that don’t exist. You either fight against racism or you support the racists. There is no middle ground. It doesn’t really have to do with laws or legal resources it’s destroying this mentality that there is neutral ground to begin with.
Serious question, not being facetious, because I have always agreed with that and it would certainly be better that way. How do you suggest we do that? Because whatever it is we have been doing isn’t working.