Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 110: Cleveland Steamer

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tell that to the KKK
---

no need for them to be rude either
---

"kill all X" is, and should, be legal as well. to use a known meme, "gas the jews, race war now!" is an offensive phrase but should not be an illegal one. it can be said without malicious intent or any cause to harm, therefore it should not be illegal.

"I'm going to kill X person" is where you start drawing the line. a threat against a person, not a group of people, is the rightful line of what an actual threat is.

edit:
by the same token, things like chanting "dead cops now" by BLM is also something that's legal. and should be.
---

i would argue that kill all x should be considered a crime unless it is just straight up facetious

i hate x or i hate all x should absolutely never be illegal under any circumstance
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884211874518192128

That was fast
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884211874518192128

That was fast

trump whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
---

ceasefire lol

neither side stopped for even a second, guaranteed
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884211874518192128

That was fast

not without catching a snake first!



---

kill all x is obviously hateful but doesn't threaten any specific person. you don't harm a group, you harm people in a group. as a result, that makes it not an actual threat to attack someone. that's the way it legally works and that's a fair line to put it as law never likes nuance, it just hammers down everything it can.

mind you, if anyone is harmed as a result of that you might find yourself in legal trouble too. but those kind of statements are often said without anything actually happening, on both extreme ends of left and the right.
---

Wanglicious posted...

kill all x is obviously hateful but doesn't threaten any specific person. you don't harm a group, you harm people in a group. as a result, that makes it not an actual threat to attack someone. that's the way it legally works and that's a fair line to put it as law never likes nuance, it just hammers down everything it can.

This is why we have judges and juries, to interpret the situation as a legit threat or not.

There's a difference between PewDiePie making kids with a sign say "kill all Jews" as a gag, and the dude who shot Scalise (hypothetically) saying "kill all Republicans" as he posts a picture with his legally owned gun outside of Congress.

The law itself can't distinguish what's an actionable threat, and that's where trials with human beings making the decisions come in.
---

Wanglicious posted...

kill all x is obviously hateful but doesn't threaten any specific person. you don't harm a group, you harm people in a group. as a result, that makes it not an actual threat to attack someone. that's the way it legally works and that's a fair line to put it as law never likes nuance, it just hammers down everything it can.

mind you, if anyone is harmed as a result of that you might find yourself in legal trouble too. but those kind of statements are often said without anything actually happening, on both extreme ends of left and the right.

i guess thats where i draw the line between hate speech and violent speech. hate speech (amongst other things) is an emotion, a feeling and a verbalization of negativity towards or about a certain group or person. violent speech is a declaration that you want to cause tangible harm or death to that group or person. that you want to deprive them of their inalienable rights and you recognize that what you are saying is a direct creation for that to happen. that is not to say people cannot feel threatened by hate speech, especially by a group with the kkks history, but criminalizing a feeling and a verbalization of that feeling is a line im not willing to cross. i dont see that line being uncrossed
---

To be blunt, I'm alright with treating all threats with the assumption that they have full intent behind them until proven otherwise.

People treat words like they're harmless things but words are literally how we influence people around us. Speaking is an action. And all actions have consequences.

And I'd be alright with people being more aware of the consequences of their actions.
---

guilty until proven innocent, eh?

no thanks
---

Someone who says "kill all X" shouldn't be arrested on the spot, but I sure would love the cops to come knocking on his or her door and asked them about what they mean.
---

Relevant Supreme Court case: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie
---

consequence of chilling speech far outweighs any verbalization.


Jakyl25 posted...

There's a difference between PewDiePie making kids with a sign say "kill all Jews" as a gag, and the dude who shot Scalise (hypothetically) saying "kill all Republicans" as he posts a picture with his legally owned gun outside of Congress.

The law itself can't distinguish what's an actionable threat, and that's where trials with human beings making the decisions come in.

right, that's fair. even if you just had a picture on the latter, cops would take it seriously. but that's not just because of your speech but that's because you've presented yourself as being physically capable of doing it. there's a line in there, sure. it's just one that generally isn't in favor of banning the "kill all X."


here's an actual example of two days ago.

http://breaking911.com/man-arrested-threatening-kill-gop-senator-fundraiser/
[Simet told] employees at Loess Hills Harley-Davidson in Pacific Junction, Iowa, that “everybody in the government needs to be killed off” and specifically mentioning Mrs. Ernst.

“The unknown male went on to say that he knew Joni Ernst would be here Saturday and ‘I could kill her, they would kill me, it would not matter, I would win either way,’” said the affidavit filed Friday by FBI special agent Jonathan Robitaille.

like the first part by itself wouldn't, and shouldn't, be illegal.
but the second part, where he gets to a specific person? yeah no, that's the part when it's more serious as it's directed at a person.
---

FFDragon posted...

guilty until proven innocent, eh?

no thanks

Why shouldn't we assume people mean what they say?

For the record, I'm not saying "arrest and jail everyone who makes threats even if they're joking", I'm saying "investigate all threats made, period, on the assumption that they could be genuine."

Because far too often people treat it like a joke and then someone actually follows through on a threat, and people go "Oh no, what could we have done to prevent this?"

And this happens over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Treat all threats as serious. Period. That's how you prevent it.
---

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/884155924952363008
---

Are we still even arguing the same thing?
---

BowserCuffs posted...

FFDragon posted...

guilty until proven innocent, eh?

no thanks

Why shouldn't we assume people mean what they say?

For the record, I'm not saying "arrest and jail everyone who makes threats even if they're joking", I'm saying "investigate all threats made, period, on the assumption that they could be genuine."

Because far too often people treat it like a joke and then someone actually follows through on a threat, and people go "Oh no, what could we have done to prevent this?"

And this happens over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

Treat all threats as serious. Period. That's how you prevent it.

Should NWA's song "Cop Killer" have been banned or treated as criminal?
---

Cop Killer was Ice T

NWA was Fuck The Police
---

FFDragon posted...

Are we still even arguing the same thing?

That's... actually a fairly good question.

What are you arguing?
---

Restrictions on freedom of speech worry me because the party in power switches frequently in the US, and what is deemed offensive or illegal speech is going to vaccinate wildly over a decade. I don't like the idea of criminalizing what someone says, regardless of how repugnant it is. (Obviously actionable threats are different but I don't think anyone is arguing against that).

If someone says something racist, I don't want them jailed. BUT I think it is absolutely fair game to organize a protest, boycott their place of business, or put pressure on their employers to fire them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech. I just feel squeamish if the government comes in to start policing it.
---

I'm arguing that the mere existence/assembly of groups like the KKK, while regrettable, is well within their rights. Up to and including saying that they hate 'the blacks' or whatever it is they do these days.

Making direct threats as you say, I agree they should be investigated.

But merely saying they hate X or wearing their hoods or whatever does not constitute a threat.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Cop Killer was Ice T

NWA was Fuck The Police

Correct!

My general point still stands though.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

Yes, very much this.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

If someone says something racist, I don't want them jailed.

Well, yeah, I actually agree.

But if they publicly hold racist rallies designed to stir up antagonistic feelings, then that should be treated exactly as an incitement to violence.

Otherwise, it's society's duty to prevent racism from becoming accepted. And in that sense, we failed because we were so worried about protecting all free speech that we didn't realize we were actually silencing criticism towards racism and treating racism as if it had equal validity to everything else.

For the record, not everything has to result in jail time or even arrests. Investigations can be done, and if someone is found guilty of doing something that actually incites violence, you could actually, ya know, fine them. Or have them do community service, or undergo sensitivity training, or something.

But we know ridicule doesn't work and as long as a racist sounds smart and his opponents don't, we give him credence even if what he says is objectively ridiculous.

It's actually kind of ironic... those who are most zealous about defending free speech are its worst opponents.

FFDragon posted...

I'm arguing that the mere existence/assembly of groups like the KKK, while regrettable, is well within their rights. Up to and including saying that they hate 'the blacks' or whatever it is they do these days.

Making direct threats as you say, I agree they should be investigated.

But merely saying they hate X or wearing their hoods or whatever does not constitute a threat.

So we're actually on the same page and didn't realize it then.

That being said, if you name yourself after a terrorist group, or consider yourself a part of that same group, you should really be under 24/7 investigation.

And considering what the KKK has done in history, and what they say they want to do in the future, it should deserve the label of terrorist group.

Also, the KKK shouldn't be given a platform. At all. They're entitled to congregate in their own homes or whatever, but no one should be hosting them. Not something I want enforced by law, but by common sense.
---

But if they publicly hold racist rallies designed to stir up antagonistic feelings, then that should be treated exactly as a result to violence.

Do you think any rallies we've held lately on the left were designed to stir up antagonistic feelings towards republicans in general or Trump specifically?
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

what is deemed offensive or illegal speech is going to vaccinate wildly over a decade.

Nice Freudian slip
---

It wasn't a Freudian slip, it was me posting from my phone and autocorrect attempting to fix my atrocious spelling of the word "vaccilate" (vacillate is obviously the word I was going for but I don't spell words good and stuff).
---

Here's a little peek into some behind the scenes stuff

Every post I've made in this topic series since it began has been from my phone.

No excuses!
---

Well yes but you spell at an adult level and I was the first person in my class out in my fourth grade spelling bee, the failure of which shames me to this day.

Not enough to learn how to spell, mind you.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

But if they publicly hold racist rallies designed to stir up antagonistic feelings, then that should be treated exactly as a result to violence.

Do you think any rallies we've held lately on the left were designed to stir up antagonistic feelings towards republicans in general or Trump specifically?

Unfortunately, yes, to both.
---

I mean the president has been calling journalists the enemy of the american people for a while now.

Does this extend to mean that news crews are stirring up antagonistic feelings and so they shouldn't be able to do live stories on location?


(this is (slightly) facetious, but also a logical extension of what can happen once you start clamping down on things unjustly)
---

FFDragon posted...

I mean the president has been calling journalists the enemy of the american people for a while now.

Does this extend to mean that news crews are stirring up antagonistic feelings and so they shouldn't be able to do live stories on location?


(this is (slightly) facetious, but also a logical extension of what can happen once you start clamping down on things unjustly)

Quite the opposite, it means the president should be in jail for inciting violence against the press!

(And for all that other stuff he did.)
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/09/donald-trump-jr-s-stunningly-incriminating-statement-to-the-new-york-times/?utm_term=.bdc6717c92bb

Am I missing something or is this a really big deal?

Or did we cover it already?
---

We brought up the Times story, but I don't know if we brought up Jr's statement

And yeah, he is stupid as fuck and basically admitted intent
---

https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG
---

Once again, Ulti shows he doesn't understand news organizations hire different contributors with completely different views.

And yes, I see that early one with the same author, but one instance does not a pattern make--and that's ignoring the distinct possibility of a valid reason. I'd bet money at the very least that second one references the first.

Edit: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/11/hillary-clintons-health-just-became-a-real-issue-in-the-presidential-campaign/

I went ahead and looked it up, and dude even quotes himself in the last article in regards to new information.

It makes perfect sense that updating your opinions when presented with new facts would seem strange to the Trump School of thought, lmao
---

FFDragon posted...

I'm arguing that the mere existence/assembly of groups like the KKK, while regrettable, is well within their rights. Up to and including saying that they hate 'the blacks' or whatever it is they do these days.

Making direct threats as you say, I agree they should be investigated.

But merely saying they hate X or wearing their hoods or whatever does not constitute a threat.

Most other western countries have more or less concluded that generic threats and dog whistling is basically the same thing and have hate speech laws.

We don't - but most people don't think of Australia, Canada or Germany or France as like unreasonable places for having these laws.
---

Yeah

There's an argument that we go too far with punishing that stuff sometimes but I wouldn't say we do it wrong per se. Just different.
---

ulti's apparently very concerned with inconsistency, so i wonder what he thinks about trump's 180 on comey.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/here-s-timeline-trump-s-statements-comey-n757416

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884361623514656769

I tell you what, what he did, he brought back his reputation. He brought it back. He's got to hang tough. A lot of people want him to do the wrong thing. What he did was the right thing.

James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!

---

i like how one of those pic comparisons is about NBC literally stating they're making a correction.

yeah, we should totally bash the media into the ground for admitting to a mistake and correcting themselves! we expect perfection from human beings!
---

One of the things that's always interested me about this one prayer that we say at Yom Kippur has a clause along the lines of "help me to forgive from others that which i condemn in myself"


I wonder if the right demands perfection from the left because they're frustrated at their own imperfections?


But that demands far too much self - reflection and honesty, so I doubt it.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884363456849342464

Fucking everything is beautiful with this asshole, including taking away health insurance from 22 million people (and making most other peoples' insurance shittier)
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884378624660582405

man i love hypotheticals.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884378624660582405

man i love hypotheticals.

I love the flat admission he was giving the country away there.
---

Weren't people already giving the Clintons a hard time for grooming Chelsea into a potential Senate run?
---