The Ethics of Punching Nazis

[pErvinalia]

No, and I didn't say it was - I was referring to a person cheering it on -- espousing the sentiment that it was good for the vigilante to have done what they did. Obviously, one has a right to hold and espouse that sentiment, too. I was merely disagreeing with that sentiment - I am in favor of equal application of the law - and I would ask myself if I would cheer on someone bashing a communist in the face like that.

Where did Seabass say that he wasn't in favour of equal application of the law?

Nowhere. I said I am in favor of it.

As a juxtaposition to Seabass's "sentiment" that you were referring to. It's one thing to use so much dodgy rhetoric when you debate, but it's another when you can't admit you are doing it.

[Forty Two]

No, and I didn't say it was - I was referring to a person cheering it on -- espousing the sentiment that it was good for the vigilante to have done what they did. Obviously, one has a right to hold and espouse that sentiment, too. I was merely disagreeing with that sentiment - I am in favor of equal application of the law - and I would ask myself if I would cheer on someone bashing a communist in the face like that.

Where did Seabass say that he wasn't in favour of equal application of the law?

Nowhere. I said I am in favor of it.

As a juxtaposition to Seabass's "sentiment" that you were referring to. It's one thing to use so much dodgy rhetoric when you debate, but it's another when you can't admit you are doing it.

It's a neverending thing with you, this attempt to control how other people state their own opinions.

Look - Seabass expressed glee with a person assaulting and battering someone because they voiced what in Seabass' view is a despicable opinion.

I think equal application of the law (in this case freedom of speech) means everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if those opinions are despicable, free from the assaults and batteries of other citizens.

I don't know for sure if Seabass agrees with that. He might. He might not. I suspect he doesn't agree with it because of his expression of glee when an assaulter and batterer got off with a $1 fine for beating someone up in response to opinion. I didn't SAY what his view was on that point. I said what MY view was - because MY view was in support of MY opinion that I don't think it's a good thing or something to be applauded when someone beats another person up over the content of an opinion.

[pErvinalia]

No, and I didn't say it was - I was referring to a person cheering it on -- espousing the sentiment that it was good for the vigilante to have done what they did. Obviously, one has a right to hold and espouse that sentiment, too. I was merely disagreeing with that sentiment - I am in favor of equal application of the law - and I would ask myself if I would cheer on someone bashing a communist in the face like that.

Where did Seabass say that he wasn't in favour of equal application of the law?

Nowhere. I said I am in favor of it.

As a juxtaposition to Seabass's "sentiment" that you were referring to. It's one thing to use so much dodgy rhetoric when you debate, but it's another when you can't admit you are doing it.

It's a neverending thing with you, this attempt to control how other people state their own opinions.

You can say whatever you want, however you want. Just don't whinge when you get called out on your transparent debating tactics.

[Hermit]

Those who are convinced that people who deny equal rights regardless of race as a matter of policy. If the Trump Administration, a Republican Congress or the Bureau of Speech and Public Protest do that, I will not object.

Those who are convinced that people who deny equal rights regardless of race as a matter of policy? What does that mean? I think you're missing some words in that sentence - it's a sentence fragment, actually.

Yes, my previous post does not make sense. I thought I could dash a reply off in a rush and get back to my frying eggs before they are overdone.

Basically, I mean that any body who can limit intolerance to those who aim to deny equal rights and protection regardless of race as a matter of policy, get my vote. I cited two organisations who would qualify for such intolerance before they had even committed any crimes here. If the Trump Administration, a Republican Congress or the Bureau of Speech and Public Protest do that, so be it.

[Forty Two]

You can say whatever you want, however you want. Just don't whinge when you get called out on your transparent debating tactics.

What kind of schools did you go to? They failed you miserably.

[Forty Two]

Those who are convinced that people who deny equal rights regardless of race as a matter of policy. If the Trump Administration, a Republican Congress or the Bureau of Speech and Public Protest do that, I will not object.

Those who are convinced that people who deny equal rights regardless of race as a matter of policy? What does that mean? I think you're missing some words in that sentence - it's a sentence fragment, actually.

Yes, my previous post does not make sense. I thought I could dash a reply off in a rush and get back to my frying eggs before they are overdone.

Basically, I mean that any body who can limit intolerance to those who aim to deny equal rights and protection regardless of race as a matter of policy, get my vote. I cited two organisations who would qualify for such intolerance before they had even committed any crimes here. If the Trump Administration, a Republican Congress or the Bureau of Speech and Public Protest do that, so be it.

I still think you have a wording problem there -

you mean: "any body who can limit intolerance to those who aim to deny equal rights and protections regardless of race as a matter of policy."

The body would "limit intolerance" -- to people who am to deny equal rights and protections. Do you mean a body who can limit tolerance of those who aim to deny equal rights and protections?

I'm all for limiting INTOLERANCE, even to those who aim to deny equal rights and protections.

For example, you would deny equal rights and protections to people based on their political opinions or ideologies. You would deny them the right to free speech, if you think their view is that they would deny equal rights and protections to others.

So, logically, you are one of the ones that would deny equal rights and protections to others - not on account of their race, but on account of their opinions being the despicable ones.

If you are in favor of shutting down John Bachtell or Rocky Suhayda's right to free speech, then don't you "aim to deny equal rights and protections" to them? They don't get the equal right of free speech? They don't get equal protection? You get to voice your despicable views, they don't get theirs?

[Hermit]

If you are in favor of shutting down John Bachtell or Rocky Suhayda's right to free speech, then don't you "aim to deny equal rights and protections" to them? They don't get the equal right of free speech? They don't get equal protection? You get to voice your despicable views, they don't get theirs?

I don't know who John Bachtell or Rocky Suhayda are, but if they aim to deny equal rights and protections regardless of race as a matter of policy, yes, they have no right to free speech. Your description of my opinion as a despicable view is noted.

[Joe]

Oh, you mean people are complex, and many cowards can also be bullies? If you believe that's not possible, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

And, you mean two things can exist at once? A person can be against violence committed by neo-Nazis, AND against violence committed by non-Nazis against people they think are Nazis or they think might in the future commit wrongful acts?

You post a meme about "Schrodinger's Lefitst" and you apparently claim that if I'm against neo-Nazis shooting up churches, I must be all in favor of Leftists having free reign to assault anyone they believe harbors Nazi or fascist or alt-right viewpoints (even if not having committed a crime).

We aren't a vigilante society - so, even if a person was to murder someone else, that person is not an outlaw, open to retaliation at will. I.e., if black men murders several people for reasons of black nationalism, or for reasons of economic necessity, or for unknown reasons, that does not mean it's open season on black men. If Communists murder several people for reasons of advancing their revolution, or for other or unknown reasons, that does not mean it's open season on Communists - and it's not even lawful to just hit them.

That's why when a mass murderer can be captured, he's captured. We don't authorize the police or common citizens just to shoot them or beat them.

The same is true for those you or others think are neo-Nazis or fascists. Although some of them commit crimes, and some of them even advocate in favor of crime (even violent crime), that does not mean it's open season on anyone engaged in that ideology or adhering to that ideology.

I don't care if you're sad about it - and you don't have to care about that person - or even that you laugh about it. A lot of conservatives laugh when criminals get their "due," and a lot of conservatives laugh when people of ideologies they dislike get harmed in some way. The "liberal" view on this sort of thing, though, is that punishment of crime is for the criminal justice system, which presumes innocence and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt - and that even criminals have rights -- and that even criminals have free speech rights - and that we don't punish people for their thoughts and words - and that we certainly do not support vigilante justice.

Your view, apparently, is not the liberal one. You have a right to it - even though you support private justice - vigilante justice - and you support hitting (at a minimum) people who express repugnant views - I hold the liberal view that you have every right to think that way, and to express your view that it should be lawful to do those things. I disagree with you, for reasons stated. Go on now, if you like, and support your view that vigilante justice is a good thing, when meted out against the people you think are hateful.

It's a tough sell, defending the speech and due process rights of despicable people espousing despicable ideas, isn't it?

No, not at all. Defending speech rights and due process rights is not dependent, in my view, on the despicable or non-despicable nature of people to whom they are afforded. The law should apply equally to the despicable and the non-despicable, particularly because whether a person is despicable is itself debatable. One person's despicable-ness, is another person's godliness. Do you want a nation of orthodox Muslims, Jews and Christians determining if a Satanist is "despicable" or not (so as to be entitled to the same free speech as everyone else and the same due process as everyone else)?

I've always found it odd that atheists would champion the denial of free speech and due process and equal protection to those they think espouse awful and despicable opinions - it is not so long ago that atheism itself was considered by most to render one so untrustworthy that one ought be denied free speech and other rights.

I'm thinking back to the debates on "enhanced interrogation" and indefinite detention in W's Presidency, and the excuses so-called conservatives made for denying those people their rights.

So often, we fall short of our ideals, but at least we can console ourselves that this time the Nazi had his day in court.

The puncher risked a year in prison and a $2500 fine for his actions. That the jury made it $1 and no jail time is newsworthy, but hardly sets a precedent, and Winder still has a misdemeanor assault conviction on his record.

I'm sure it's not the result Kessler would have preferred, but it's not an endorsement of vigilantism either.

No, and I didn't say it was - I was referring to a person cheering it on -- espousing the sentiment that it was good for the vigilante to have done what they did. Obviously, one has a right to hold and espouse that sentiment, too. I was merely disagreeing with that sentiment - I am in favor of equal application of the law - and I would ask myself if I would cheer on someone bashing a communist in the face like that. I wouldn't. As much as I despise communism, and as much as I believe it is an ideology that really hurts people overall, I would not cheer on vigilante justice meted out like that. I loathe fascism too, but I don't make exceptions. If the Commie or the Nazi broke the law, then prosecute. If they haven't, then it's not even vigilante justice - it's WORSE than that. It's mere assault and battery on a person who isn't even guilty of a crime.

Everyone knows the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, asked for an actual example of when it would be proper to limit speech or define it as an action, gave that of shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.

It is very often forgotten that what he was doing in that case was sending to prison a group of Yiddish-speaking socialists, whose literature was printed in a language most Americans couldn’t read, opposing President Wilson’s participation in the First World War, and the dragging of the United States into this sanguinary conflict, which the Yiddish-speaking socialists had fled from Russia to escape.

In fact it could be just as plausible argued that the Yiddish-speaking socialists, who were jailed by the excellent and over-praised judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, were the real fire fighters, were the ones who were shouting fire when there really was fire in a very crowded theatre, indeed.

it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear. And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.

In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view. Indeed as John Stuart Mill said, if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important — in fact, it would become even more important — that that one heretic be heard, because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view.

freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently.

,

“If you hear the Pope saying he believes in God, you think, well, the Pope’s doing his job again today. If you hear the Pope saying he’s really begun to doubt the existence of God, you begin to think he might be on to something.”

let’s say as if in compensation for that, everyone is made to swallow an official and unalterable story of it now, and it’s taught as the great moral exemplar, the moral equivalent of the morally lacking elements of the Second World War, a way of stilling our uneasy conscience about that combat — if that’s the case with everybody, as it more or less is, and one person gets up and says:

“You know what, this Holocaust, I’m not sure it even happened. In fact, I’m pretty certain it didn’t. Indeed, I begin to wonder if the only thing is that the Jews brought a little bit of violence on themselves.” That person doesn’t just have a right to speak, that person’s right to speak must be given extra protection. Because what he has to say must have taken him some effort to come up with, might contain a grain of historical truth, might in any case give people to think about why do they know what they already think they know. How do I know that I know this, except that I’ve always been taught this and never heard anything else?

It’s always worth establishing first principles. It’s always worth saying, what would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the earth is round? Am I sure about the theory of evolution? I know it’s supposed to be true. Here’s someone who says there’s no such thing, it’s all intelligent design. How sure am I of my own views? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think you’re bound to be okay, because you’re in the safely moral majority.

One of the proudest moments of my life, that’s to say, in the recent past, has been defending the British historian David Irving, who is now in prison in Austria for nothing more than the potential of uttering an unwelcome thought on Austrian soil. He didn’t actually say anything in Austria. He wasn’t even accused of saying anything. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something that violated an Austrian law that says, “Only one version of the history of the Second World War may be taught in our brave little Tyrolean Republic.”

The republic that gave us Kurt Waldheim as Secretary General of the United Nations, a man wanted in several countries for war crimes. You know, the country that has Jorge Heider the leader of its own fascist party in the cabinet that sent David Irving to jail.

Now to this proud record they can add they have the courage finally to face their past and lock up a British historian who has committed no crime except that of thought and writing. And that’s a scandal. I can’t find a seconder usually when I propose this, but I don’t care. I don’t need a seconder. My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.

Now, I don’t know how many of you don’t feel you’re grown up enough to decide this for yourselves, and think you need to be protected from David Irving’s edition of the Goebbels diaries, for example — out of which I learned more about the Third Reich than I had from studying Hugh Trevor-Roper and A.J.P. Taylor combined when I was at Oxford.

But for those of you who do, I would recommend another short course of revision. Go again and see, not just the film and the play, but read the text from Robert Bolt’s wonderful play “A Man for All Seasons” — some of you must have seen it — where Sir Thomas Moore decides that he would rather die than lie or betray his faith, and at one moment, Moore is arguing with a particularly vicious, witch-hunting prosecutor, a servant of the King and a hungry and ambitious man.

And Moore says to this man, “You’d break the law to punish the Devil, wouldn’t you?”

And the prosecutor, the witch-hunter, he says, “Break it? I’d cut down every law in England if I could do that, if I could capture him!”

And Moore says, “Yes, you would, wouldn’t you? And then when you’d cornered the Devil, and the Devil turned round to meet you, where would you run for protection, all the laws of England having been cut down and flattened? Who would protect you then?”

Bear in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else, in potencia, you’re making a rod for own back. Because the other question raised by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is simply this: who’s going to decide?

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what’s fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched?

to whom you would delegate the task of deciding for you what you could read? To whom you would give the job of deciding for you, relieve you of the responsibility of hearing what you might have to hear?

Do you know anyone — hands up — do you know anyone to whom you’d give this job? Does anyone have a nominee? You mean there’s no one in Canada good enough to decide what I can read? Or hear? I had no idea. But there’s a law that says there must be such a person. Or there’s a subsection of some piddling law that says it. Well, the hell with that law then. It’s inviting you to be liars and hypocrites and to deny what you evidently know already.

About the censorious instinct we basically know all that we need to know, and we’ve known it for a long time. It comes from an old story about another great Englishman — sorry to sound so particular about that this evening — Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great lexicographer, compiler of the first dictionary of the English language.

When it was complete, Dr. Johnson was waited upon by various delegations of people to congratulate him, of the nobility, of the quality, of the Commons, of the Lords — and also by a delegation of respectable ladies of London, who tended on him at his Fleet Street lodgings, and congratulated him.

“Dr. Johnson,” they said, “we are delighted to find that you have not included any indecent or obscene words in your dictionary.”

“Ladies,” said Dr. Johnson, “I congratulate you on being able to look them up.”

Anyone who can understand that joke — and I’m pleased to see that about 10 percent of you can — gets the point about censorship, especially about prior restraint, as it’s known in the United States, where it’s banned by the First Amendment to the Constitution. It may not be determined in advance what words are apt or inapt. No one has the knowledge that would be required to make that call.

And, more to the point, one has to suspect the motives of those who do so. In particular, the motives of those who are determined to be offended, those who will go through a treasure house of English, like Dr. Johnson’s first lexicon, in search of filthy words, to satisfy themselves and some instinct about which I dare not speculate.

https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2 ... m-to-hate/

TL:DR. Forty Two steadfastly supports the rights of free speech, due process, and such for Nazi's, terrorists, and all sorts of despicable human detritus.

But how does he feel about Trump critics?

[Cunt]

If you are in favor of shutting down John Bachtell or Rocky Suhayda's right to free speech, then don't you "aim to deny equal rights and protections" to them? They don't get the equal right of free speech? They don't get equal protection? You get to voice your despicable views, they don't get theirs?

I don't know who John Bachtell or Rocky Suhayda are, but if they aim to deny equal rights and protections regardless of race as a matter of policy, yes, they have no right to free speech. Your description of my opinion as a despicable view is noted.

Free speech isn't really that important to the speaker, but to the listener.

It sounds here, like you don't want people to have the right to hear things you disagree with. That is also denying the right to free speech to those you disagree with.

Very problematic, if your ideological opponents get their hands on the levers of power, isn't it?

Free speech may not be good enough for everyone, but it is better than everything else, so far. At least as far as respecting people.

The question I think now, is where should free speech be protected? I would like to see areas clearly defined as 'free protected'.

Talking, even objectionably, is how we get all our really effective thinking done. You may be a fucking idiot, but if you can talk to a bunch of experts, in a bunch of different fields, you can smarten up enough to live a good life, and even contribute. A genius all alone wouldn't get anywhere. That's how important talking is. How important it is to be free to converse about lots of things.

So I haven't ever listened carefully to Nazi's, with a mind of learning what their point is. (I think it is: 'one race is best, and all the others should die and leave us our nation of socialist paradise', with a dash of moral high ground) There may be only a few hundred of them in existence, so I don't really care to learn about them, but if I wanted to, how could I learn anything about them without listening to their side?

To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker?

So, Hermit, if you favour limits, can you answer this?

For me, no-one has the right. Anyone who claims the right, shows such ignorance and malice, that they should immediately lose the right to speak about it. If you support constraints on political speech, for example, you show yourself unable to speak about it.

[Brian Peacock]

The law generally concerns itself with action rather than opinions or viewpoints, for good and sound reasons. If I say that my friends and I, in accordance with our shared opinions and viewpoint, are going to run you out of town, then that becomes an action doesn't it, whether we actually put on the brown shirts and mob up, or not? Freedom of expression is an assured human right under the UNUDHR, but exercising that right is an action, and so those who speak freely carry responsibility for their words and the consequences.

So what are we to do when someone says that they're going to run someone out of town? Should we simply accept that people have a right to say that sort of thing and ignore it, and then just content ourselves to wait until the synagogues and baptist churches are on fire before we either allow the law to step in or begin to think about taking defensive action ourselves?

[Seabass]

No, and I didn't say it was - I was referring to a person cheering it on -- espousing the sentiment that it was good for the vigilante to have done what they did. Obviously, one has a right to hold and espouse that sentiment, too. I was merely disagreeing with that sentiment - I am in favor of equal application of the law - and I would ask myself if I would cheer on someone bashing a communist in the face like that.

Where did Seabass say that he wasn't in favour of equal application of the law?

Nowhere. I said I am in favor of it.

As a juxtaposition to Seabass's "sentiment" that you were referring to. It's one thing to use so much dodgy rhetoric when you debate, but it's another when you can't admit you are doing it.

It's a neverending thing with you, this attempt to control how other people state their own opinions.

Look - Seabass expressed glee with a person assaulting and battering someone because they voiced what in Seabass' view is a despicable opinion.

I think equal application of the law (in this case freedom of speech) means everyone has the right to voice their opinions, even if those opinions are despicable, free from the assaults and batteries of other citizens.

I don't know for sure if Seabass agrees with that. He might. He might not. I suspect he doesn't agree with it because of his expression of glee when an assaulter and batterer got off with a $1 fine for beating someone up in response to opinion. I didn't SAY what his view was on that point. I said what MY view was - because MY view was in support of MY opinion that I don't think it's a good thing or something to be applauded when someone beats another person up over the content of an opinion.

Maybe you shouldn't take every emoji so seriously, you stupid tit.

[Rum]

Liberty’s take on free speech in the UK, with some concerns.

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/h ... h-offences

[Joe]

Liberty’s take on free speech in the UK, with some concerns.

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/h ... h-offences

I remember taking a quiz in a London newspaper on what was protected speech and what was not. I flunked, because the UK's laws were so different. I usually do well on those based on US law.

Here's a primer on the US. https://lawshelf.com/videos/entry/freed ... -protected

It gets much more complicated in practice, as you can imagine with refusing to bake a cake becoming a free speech controversy.

[Joe]

The law generally concerns itself with action rather than opinions or viewpoints, for good and sound reasons. If I say that my friends and I, in accordance with our shared opinions and viewpoint, are going to run you out of town, then that becomes an action doesn't it, whether we actually put on the brown shirts and mob up, or not? Freedom of expression is an assured human right under the UNUDHR, but exercising that right is an action, and so those who speak freely carry responsibility for their words and the consequences.

So what are we to do when someone says that they're going to run someone out of town? Should we simply accept that people have a right to say that sort of thing and ignore it, and then just content ourselves to wait until the synagogues and baptist churches are on fire before we either allow the law to step in or begin to think about taking defensive action ourselves?

In the US, incitement to illegal activity is one kind of speech that can be restricted, but from what I've read, it has to be imminent and likely illegal activity.

[Brian Peacock]

Which is why political racists are vague, non-specific, and use rhetoric euphamistically and with plausible deniability built in - so we hear talk of 'defending Western Civilisation' rather that 'White power', and of 'protecting our communities' instead of 'excluding them darkies', or even the catchall 'Alt-right', which as a term stands in for anything from conservatism, to nationalism, to out and out fascism which is predicated on and built around so-called 'White identity politics.'