The Power of the ANTIFA Myth

[Talon]

Why? Because you're a militant atheist who probably thinks most religious people are morons?

Oh mjr... the top of your head must look like a dartboard, given all the points that have flown right over it.

[Gravekeeper]

Why? Because you're a militant atheist who probably thinks most religious people are morons?

I'm sure there are people who want the Bible classified as "hate speech".

Dude, what the hell? Can you really not have a conversation with anyone on this board without resorting to this kind of crap?

[Canarr]

Yes, that simply isn't feasible. Moving the responsibility onto a private company will just result in said company either over correcting to avoid the financial penalty or simply leaving Germany as a market altogether. The nebulous nature of the internet makes it a very difficult problem to tackle online, but that approach isn't going to cut it.

It also passes the buck, as you illustrated. A private company is free to remove any speech or content from its site. It doesn't have an obligation to protect speech as its not a public forum nor a public entity. In fact you've straight up given it a financial incentive to do the opposite.

Besides, Large social media networks can't keep up with the amount of garbage on them as is and they rely on reactive user reports. You're not going to get Facebook to hire god knows how much additional staff it would take to pro-actively screen all content on its site.

Exactly. But it's all done in the name of fighting hate speech - a term that lacks any kind of clear definition - so it's supposedly okay.

Well, at least one of the parties currently negotiating for the new government has made strong claims that the law needs to be "reworked". Of course, their original claim was that "we will make sure it will be the shortest-lived law in history!", so I'm not holding my breath.

But, honestly: I'm beginning to get why people vote for the AfD (basically, our version of Trump).

Threats are already legally covered. As for disrupting events, that depends. Protesting is kind of the lifeblood of democracy. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, etc etc. Now, an event should not be disrupted with violence obviously. But protest and counter protest are integral features.

Protesting is fine. Disrupting is not.

In the US, you have instances of students disrupting the lecture of professors they disagree with, or speakers they don't want to hear, by heckling or other kind of noisemaking. In Germany, meetings and congresses of the AfD are disrupted - attendants forced to run a gauntlet of protesters, harassed and shoved, managers of locations receiving death threats for renting their venue to a legitimate, if despised, political party - all in the name of protecting people from them.

Because if the speech delivered by the AfD, or Milo Yannopoulus(?), or Christina Hoff Summers, is classified as "violence", then committing actual, physical violence somehow becomes okay, even an act of self-defense. And I find this horribly wrong.

Careful yes, but carte blanc, no. But I mean, all laws should be implemented carefully.

They should be. I think my example of the German law I quoted shows that all too often, they're not.

Many evangelical Christians are also derided for "hate speech" when they speak out against gay marriage, or are in favor of "traditional" marriage.

Honestly: I have no problem with someone's opinion being derided. As long as nobody tries to keep them from saying it, how anybody else reacts to it is completely their decision.

Laugh at them? Sure, go ahead. Stop them from speaking? No. Never.

[Gravekeeper]

Exactly. But it's all done in the name of fighting hate speech - a term that lacks any kind of clear definition - so it's supposedly okay.

Well, the definition isn't the problem with that one it's the implementation. As for definition, I've never thought the term "hate speech" was that vague. But I find opponents of such laws try to pretend like its a complete mystery as to what hate speech is.

They always try to conflate "hate" with "offense" as if no one could ever tell the difference between the two.

Because if the speech delivered by the AfD, or Milo Yannopoulus(?), or Christina Hoff Summers, is classified as "violence", then committing actual, physical violence somehow becomes okay, even an act of self-defense. And I find this horribly wrong.

Threats, harassment and violence are all already covered by law. I'm okay with a public event being disrupted by public opinion like Yolo Minneapolis being run off a college campus. I'm also okay with a private event throwing out anyone it deems a disruption.

Yolo Minneapolis is truly an awful human being and if he's going to be given a public soapbox, he should get a public response. But again, I don't mean he should be beaten with sticks or anything. Even if I would find that personally entertaining. =p

[Canarr]

Well, the definition isn't the problem with that one it's the implementation. As for definition, I've never thought the term "hate speech" was that vague. But I find opponents of such laws try to pretend like its a complete mystery as to what hate speech is.

They always try to conflate "hate" with "offense" as if no one could ever tell the difference between the two.

Both definition and implementation. At least, under German law, hate speech is not a legal term, but somehow it's supposed to serve as basis for enforcement.

We have laws against personal insults - if I call you an asshole, you can file charges.
We have laws against libel or slander - if I claim that you're a thief, you can file charges.
We have laws against threats - if I tell you that I know where you live, and I'm coming for you tonight, you can file charges.
We have a law against "Volksverhetzung" - if I make public calls to form a mob and kill all Canadians, you can file charges.

A lot of what I would say is legitimately hate speech is already covered by existing laws. So what more is actually needed?

Threats, harassment and violence are all already covered by law. I'm okay with a public event being disrupted by public opinion like Yolo Minneapolis being run off a college campus. I'm also okay with a private event throwing out anyone it deems a disruption.

Yolo Minneapolis is truly an awful human being and if he's going to be given a public soapbox, he should get a public response. But again, I don't mean he should be beaten with sticks or anything. Even if I would find that personally entertaining. =p

You're okay with disrupting someone's public speech, as long as the interruptors feel strongly enough about it?

DISCLAIMER: None of the following examples illustrate my own beliefs.

If someone organizes a rally to inform of the problems trans people face in today's society, you'd be okay with people showing up to drown them out with a bullhorn and, "STICK WIT THE SEX YE BORN WIT!"?
If a women's group organised a demonstration for victims of sexual assault, you'd be fine with people showing up to chant, "REGRET IS NOT RAPE!" so their speech couldn't be heard?
At a protest about discrimination of gay people in the armed forces, you wouldn't mind counter-protesters screaming, "FAGS DON' BELONG IN OUR ARMY!"?

Really?

[Gravekeeper]

Both definition and implementation. At least, under German law, hate speech is not a legal term, but somehow it's supposed to serve as basis for enforcement.

Ah, German law doesn't define hate speech but they just passed a law using hate speech as benchmark? That could be a problem, yes. >.>

You're okay with disrupting someone's public speech, as long as the interruptors feel strongly enough about it?

Really?

If both sides are in a public venue both are equally entitled to their speech providing neither is breaking any laws. I may find your examples morally reprehensible but provided they don't cross a line into hate speech then everyone is equally entitled to speech in a public space.

If I organize a rally in a public space and speak, anyone else is free to organize a counter protest. A private venue is a different matter, which is why I specified public.

[Canarr]

Ah, German law doesn't define hate speech but they just passed a law using hate speech as benchmark? That could be a problem, yes. >.>

Jup. Like I said, our penal code has plenty of laws limiting free speech, but hate speech in particular is not defined.

If both sides are in a public venue both are equally entitled to their speech providing neither is breaking any laws. I may find your examples morally reprehensible but provided they don't cross a line into hate speech then everyone is equally entitled to speech in a public space.

If I organize a rally in a public space and speak, anyone else is free to organize a counter protest. A private venue is a different matter, which is why I specified public.

Yes, they are morally reprehensible; which is why I used them.

My issue is that I don't see the right to assembly or to free speech actually and adequately granted if simultaneously someone else is allowed to disrupt your event and thus, render it useless. In my opinion, it would be the government's responsibility to ensure that anyone holding a sanctioned event in public actually has the opportunity to conduct that event as planned (provided they break no laws doing it, of course). Yes, the government must allow for counter-protesters, but should keep both sides from disrupting each other.

I realize this may prove difficult in practice, but I believe this is an essential part of organized, democratic protest. Otherwise, there would be nothing keeping someone like, say, Trump from disrupting any protest against him by just paying for a truck with a sound system on it, blasting "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" at a volume higher than the protesters'.

[Gravekeeper]

My issue is that I don't see the right to assembly or to free speech actually and adequately granted if simultaneously someone else is allowed to disrupt your event and thus, render it useless. In my opinion, it would be the government's responsibility to ensure that anyone holding a sanctioned event in public actually has the opportunity to conduct that event as planned (provided they break no laws doing it, of course). Yes, the government must allow for counter-protesters, but should keep both sides from disrupting each other.

If you have a sanctioned event and contention is expected then yes, the government has a responsibility to keep things civil. Really, any contentious event where protesters and counterprotestors are expected should have police on hand to keep things orderly. Police in the US have been doing a particularly piss poor job of that as of late.

If you just organized a rally on social media with no permit, etc, though you don't really have any elevated right to the public space you're occupying.

I realize this may prove difficult in practice, but I believe this is an essential part of organized, democratic protest. Otherwise, there would be nothing keeping someone like, say, Trump from disrupting any protest against him by just paying for a truck with a sound system on it, blasting "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" at a volume higher than the protesters'.

Well, there would be the fact Trump is a member of the government for starters so that would be a huge can of worms. >.>

Are you referring to the white supremacist rally in Tennessee that got drowned out by counterprotestors playing La Bamba? Because I personally found that hilarious. They had no permit or anything though and the police kept everyone separate.

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/sta...48677124214785

[TheHuckster]

We have laws against personal insults - if I call you an asshole, you can file charges.

Seriously? How is a law like that enforced? Imagine how different customerssuck.com would be if that law was routinely enforced globally.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Ultimately yes - it's up to the government to keep things secure.

The fallacy of Black Bloc or people who either tacitly or overtly deify them is that regardless of what you think of someone's politics, the government MUST intervene when a group impinges on individuals rights.

You don't have the right to smash a glass window. You don't have a right to vandalize another's property. It is not up to a counter-group to police that, it's up to the Government by design primarily because that prevents ideological blood feuds. That's sort of government 101 actually and we're not breaking any ground Plato hasn't already covered.

Where a bunch of people on the left are starting to go wrong (and where militiamen/Nazi's have been for a while) in their interpretation of things, is how far they're willing to extend the public's authority into the deprivation of the "other's" rights. The problem is, to some extent conservative ideology is sort of baked into the military/police cake though so it has a massive tendancy to blur the lines. You see it in oddities where Conservative hate unions, except for policemen unions. They hate the "Government", but love the Military (a part of the government).

I think that's to some extent why you start to see larger groups of leftists that tack radical left these days. If you continually see the military or police forces used more commonly against people "like you", there is a tendency to normalize the thought of the public taking extralegal measures.

I still come down on my normal side though - the government allows a proxy for which public disagreements can be settled. It is the constant refusal of individual stakeholders to war in governance that's the issue. As long as it is more appealing for Mitch McConnel/Paul Ryan to play politics rather than compromise/pass needed laws the public will continue to radicalize and act out, largely because there's no legal catharsis that can possibly occur. You need compromise. You need people talking to each other.

Failing to do that or to have your moderates mix only leads to radicalization and dehumanization of others. Which is ultimately what ANTIFA/Nazi's exploit. In the current mode of politics, they're a feature, not a bug.

[Canarr]

If you have a sanctioned event and contention is expected then yes, the government has a responsibility to keep things civil. Really, any contentious event where protesters and counterprotestors are expected should have police on hand to keep things orderly. Police in the US have been doing a particularly piss poor job of that as of late.

If you just organized a rally on social media with no permit, etc, though you don't really have any elevated right to the public space you're occupying.

Yes. Which is why I specified "sanctioned" events in my last post. And you're right: the US police hasn't been doing a great job protecting anyone's rights to assembly or speech lately, Left or Right.

Well, there would be the fact Trump is a member of the government for starters so that would be a huge can of worms. >.>

Well, yes. But I'm sure suitable strawmen could be found at the cost of only one Mar-a-Lago visit.

Which is actually another issue I have with the new German anti-hate speech law: it is so easily abused, and if you have the funds, the possibilities are staggering. All you'd need is a few dozen minimum wage employees, some office space, and computers. Then you can have them working eight hour days flagging the social media accounts of your political opponents.

Are you referring to the white supremacist rally in Tennessee that got drowned out by counterprotestors playing La Bamba? Because I personally found that hilarious. They had no permit or anything though and the police kept everyone separate.

No; hadn't caught that. I was mostly making a general observation.

Seriously? How is a law like that enforced? Imagine how different customerssuck.com would be if that law was routinely enforced globally.

How? Rarely and with great difficulty, for the most part.

Actually, my example was wrong; "asshole" isn't one of the actionable insults by the law. Only personal insults that are intended to demean the other person are unlawful - so, calling a CS rep a "useless idiot" would qualify, yes.

[Gravekeeper]

Yes. Which is why I specified "sanctioned" events in my last post. And you're right: the US police hasn't been doing a great job protecting anyone's rights to assembly or speech lately, Left or Right.

Their primary tactic seems to be "Well we put up some yellow tape between them. We don't know what happened after that.". Even that was an upgrade from initial rallies like Huntington Beach where they just waited till the crowd finished beating someone. Then arrested anyone still laying on the ground.

Which is actually another issue I have with the new German anti-hate speech law: it is so easily abused, and if you have the funds, the possibilities are staggering. All you'd need is a few dozen minimum wage employees, some office space, and computers. Then you can have them working eight hour days flagging the social media accounts of your political opponents.

I'm sure Russia is already gearing up.

[TheHuckster]

Actually, my example was wrong; "asshole" isn't one of the actionable insults by the law. Only personal insults that are intended to demean the other person are unlawful - so, calling a CS rep a "useless idiot" would qualify, yes.

So, would a lot of the CS reps be at risk for breaking the law for calling customers "idiots" or something similar, too?

This law just seems waaaay beyond egregious hate speech and into "Call 911! My feelings are hurt!" We've been calling this situation a strawman, but it sounds closer to reality for Germany if calling someone an idiot is against the law.

[Canarr]

Well, the definition isn't the problem with that one it's the implementation. As for definition, I've never thought the term "hate speech" was that vague. But I find opponents of such laws try to pretend like its a complete mystery as to what hate speech is.

They always try to conflate "hate" with "offense" as if no one could ever tell the difference between the two.

A tiny update to the hate speech topic...

[Gravekeeper]

A tiny update to the hate speech topic...

This is what happens when you moderate by volume rather than merit. There's no doubt in my mind the only reason she's getting banned is because they flooded Facebook's system with reports.