Jess, but no one has prevented anyone from speaking anything or wants to, and if anything, it would be nicer sometimes if fewer people were speaking. No one on the libtard side over here is wanting to suppress free speech at all, much less with force.
I don't know if anyone actually HAS prevented anyone in terms of the original subject of this thread, but my problem here is it sounds very much to me like many here, like spacejunk, DO believe in suppressing free speech (or rather, that's what I would call it, they may argue it doesn't count as free speech or something, but that's exactly what I see it as). And have said as much. Even if nobody is acting on it, I can still argue against the belief that it's ok to do so in the first place.
Jess, I have been mulling over your posts in a few threads as even though I dont know much about you- I really do like your style and hope to continue to have it around in my life.
The thing that I dont understand and maybe you could shed some light for me is what your take on a society actually is?
I am ruminating on that myself and not ready to put it in words yet.
What is a decent society, what does it take to have one and is what we live in today actually decent?
The one thing that is being put out by you (I could be reading this wrong) is that society needs absolutely everyone to have the exact same equal rights and rveryone to treat everyone else exactly equally.
Is this the case?
I have trouble reconciling that simply because people do not behave in exactly the same way and never have. We are all different. So accepting and including all the rainbows and spectrums of every person is noble. Treating people exactly the same at the same time? How is that achievable?
A decent society... well, one not at all unlike what the United States is "supposed" to be but has largely failed to be. Like the US, my "perfect" society would have a bill of rights, that are almost impossible to change without near universal approval of society, and cover most of the things the real one does. Unlike the US though, my ideal society would have as a core part of its governing philosophy the requirement that laws, policies, government action etc, have a specific goal and a requirement that at some point down the track the action would be objectively tested to see if it actually worked. In other words, say we pass a law that creates a sex offender registry. As part of that law, it must be spelled out in advance the purpose of the law. For example, reducing the number of sex offences. Then later on, an independent group would check to see if it worked, and if it didn't, the law is automatically scrapped and the government can then try again with a different policy.
Basically, no more laws passed with no regard as to if they work or not. I'd probably have some kind of repercussion in place for lawmakers who routinely pass laws that fail to work.
Other than that, yes, the rule of law, peoples rights, are absolute and apply universally. Now that's not to say they apply blindly to the letter of the right. For example, free speech covers more than just words. And conversely, free speech does not cover you advocating someone you don't like be murdered. It covers the intent. Which is to say, you can express yourself however you want provided it isn't specifically encouraging people to hurt people extra judicially. By specifically, I mean you actually have to be telling people to hurt people. I say this so someone like spacejunk doesn't come and make the argument that these people are saying things that encourage an environment of hate where people MIGHT hurt people. That isn't enough, that doesn't count. You actually have to tell people to hurt/kill someone, just encouraging hate, encouraging a violent mindset, with no specific instructions to carry out some kind of illegal action, that isn't nearly enough.
As to the last part of your post, about if people need to treat everyone equally. First I'll quickly say, no, we don't as individuals need to treat everyone equally. It's not immoral to treat a child abuser like the human garbage they are, for example. But yes, the government needs to universally respect peoples rights, no matter who they are or what they've done.
But something I feel I need to point out is I have a, perhaps unusual viewpoint in this regard. By which I feel people should hold two different sets of morals that apply in different circumstances. One set is what you apply to yourself and other individuals, the other is what you apply to what the government should do. The reason for having two sets is because there are different underlying factors and motivations at work in each. In the set for individuals, you are talking about situations where it's one person, working with a very specific case where they have a lot of knowledge about the situation. In the set for government, we're talking about how the government should act generally in every situation. It's much broader in scope.
So, what this actually means in practice is. For example, I might agree hold two seemingly contradictory beliefs at the same time. I say seemingly because they aren't contradictory, it's just they are operating in a different context with different requirements. Take for example, say someone rapes your daughter. Now I don't have a daughter, but if I did, I'd want to kill the piece of shit responsible. And if someone DID kill their daughters rapists. I would understand why they did it, I wouldn't hold anything against them personally for it. I might even think they did the right thing. BUT. At the same time, I think that such vigilanti behavior can't be tolerated. The government MUST prosecute the parent for killing the rapist according to the law. Because the rapist had a right to a trial and a right not to be arbitrarily killed, and those rights were infringed by the parent. Those rights, the requirement that the government enforce those rights and act according to the law and put the parent on trial, that is all require and something I believe in because it is necessary for a function society in the broad sense.
But again, at the same time, I might go so far as to say I agree and support the parent having killed the rapist. I simultaneously support the actions of the parent for killing the rapist, but ALSO support the requirement that government put them on trial for depriving the rapist of their rights and breaking the law. Because I am using two sets of morals in two different contexts. There are the morals I apply to individuals, so I apply it to myself, and to the parent, which says you protect your family, you do what you gotta do. And you know this person raped your daughter and killing them is the only way to be sure they'll be punished. But while YOU know they raped your daughter, the government doesn't, society broadly doesn't. We can't have a society where it's LEGAL for people to just decide to murder a rapist because they deem them guilty. So I feel the government and society MUST protect peoples rights, for the good of society as a whole. In the context of what is the right thing to do for a functioning and just society.
And I ALSO feel that you as an individual have another set of morals and rules that are separate from the rules that government and the functioning of society must follow. And sometimes those rules can lead to contradictory courses of action. So I can think the rapist MUST be afforded their rights under the law, and government must prevent people from infringing those rights. But I don't feel it is hypocritical to ALSO think that in a specific situation, the morals of an individual person may legitimately compel you to break those rules.
To use another example. Say you knew someone was going to try and murder your family. And say you kill them first to protect your family. I believe you have acted morally in doing so. But I ALSO believe that the government MUST put you on trial and put you in jail if you can't show you acted in self defense (and if you can prove the threat existed, you DID, but you gotta be able to prove it).
So I may think both that you acted rightfully in killing them to protect your family, AND the government acted rightfully in jailing you for it. It might sound hypocritical or contradictory, but you gotta remember these rules are applying in two different contexts with different motivating factors. The government is responsible for all of society, the rules it must follow must be to provide the best outcome as much of the time as possible, to protect society as a whole. And what's required for that to happen, may not be the same thing that needs to happen morally in a specific individual circumstance when we're talking about one lone person. The different contexts make for different rules of morality and ethics and courses of action.
Basically, the "right thing to do" for one identical situation may be different if you're talking about what's right for a functioning society, vs what's right from the standpoint of individual actors IN that situation. I might think the individuals are right in doing one thing, and the government is right in doing something that is opposed to that thing.
Now, having said all that (if anyones still reading by this point). People have a right to free speech, and in this situation, I feel whats morally right for the state and individuals is the same. The state must not infringe on peoples rights to protest and say what they wanna say, and must prevent anyone else from infringing that right too. And as for the individual set of moral rules, it is also immoral (in my opinion) to try and prevent someone from having their say. So while in the previous examples, the state morality and the personal morality in my system of ethics were contradictory, in this case, they're the same. Neither are morally right in trying to stop someone exercising their right to free speech.
Hopefully that shed some light on my system of ethics and beliefs, and hopefully it didn't just make it WAY more confusing.
I don't wish to take you out of context here, but if child abusers (or "NAMBLA" types) tried to have a public rally, there would probably be a lot of people keen to stop it.
The reality with nazis and other fascists is that they are dangerous once they mobilise and organise. They kill people, and hate people simply for the colour of their skin, their sexuality or whatever.
They've mobilsed online, but so far we've done pretty well to scare them out of forming lynch mobs.
Charlottesville actually set their scummy "movement" back a long way, as people realised that these people aren't just fringe right-wingers, they are terrorists.
That's why we oppose them; they don't mobilise to talk. They're violent, unhinged, dangerous people that need to be prevented from organising into mobs. The state won't do that, so communities must.
"Freedom of speech" is about restrictions from the state.
Communities of concerned citizens can't (by definition) restrict freedom of speech. We just try to maintain the safety of the sorts of people targeted by nazis.
Fwiw i'm not pro-violence, nor am i a violent guy. But i'll do anything i can to stop these bonehead racist thugs getting any sense of empowerment in my community.
Yes, there would be a lot of people keen to stop it. And I can't say I blame them for wanting to stop it. But it's still free speech. And noone, not the state, and not individuals, have a right to stop them saying what they want. If pedophiles want to advocate that abusing children should be legal, they have a right to do so. As abhorrent and disgusting a notion as it may be. It is absolutely within the realm of the spirit of free speech. It is political, which is at the heart of the spirit and purpose of what free speech is supposed to protect. And I'll never agree that you or I or anyone else has the right to simply go and decide "this doesn't count" or "that doesn't count". It's way too dangerous a path to go down.
And yes, they (nazis) may be dangerous once they form into a group, but they have a right to form a group, they have a right to protest and say what they wanna say. Once they actually DO act on such beliefs by going and hurting or killing people, THEN we will hunt them down and put them in prison where they belong. But according to my belief system and what I believe is required by peoples rights and the rule of law, people CAN NOT act until they reach beyond what's protected by their rights. They have a right to say what they want, they have a right to form a group. And to safeguard democracy and freedom, those rights must be absolute. Or later on the state can deem whatever they like to be an exception. It's far too dangerous to allow the concept that there are exceptions to those rights.
The only exceptions are in what IS and isn't free speech. Threatening to kill members of some group isn't free speech, but advocating we change to a society through democratic means where some group is targetted by the government, IS free speech. In the former you're telling people to go and target this group now, in the latter you're saying the government should change through democratic and lawful means to one where targeting those people is lawful. So the only limits to what you can say center around if it actually is free speech or not, but if it IS free speech (and unless you're telling people to break the law and hurt people, or saying you'll do that yourself, or forcing your message on people in a way where they can't realistically choose to ignore, it virtually always IS free speech), then the content is irreverent, it's all permitted.
Anyway, on a somewhat different reasoning. I for one want to KNOW who these people are. Suppressing their right to say this shit won't stop them believing it, and it won't stop them talking about it. It'll just move it underground where we can't see it. I want to know who societies bigots and racists and horrible excuses for human beings are. And we can't know that unless they're allowed to show themselves for the awful people they are.
Man, sorry for the huge post, but I wanted to make my beliefs more clear, and they're kinda complicated, so I got out the laptop so I could type them with a real keyboard (I usually write my posts on my tablet) and I type really fast so my posts can get real big real fast.
Hopefully that helps explain what I believe and why I believe it.
