Germany, among many other countries, has very strict rules against Holocaust denial. This shows that it's possible to have reasonable limitations on speech without turning into an Orwellian...
The paradox of tolerance is a good guide. One should be intolerant of speech, groups, activities, individuals, etc., which itself/themselves advocates intolerance.
Your elected representatives who write, refine and reform the hate speech laws, and the judiciary who ensure those laws don’t violate citizens established fundamental rights and then make...
Your elected representatives who write, refine and reform the hate speech laws, and the judiciary who ensure those laws don’t violate citizens established fundamental rights and then make case-by-case rulings based on said laws and legal precedent. That’s the way it works here in Canada and most of the Western world and we’re doing alright by it.
It's like the whole paradox of intolerance. A completely tolerant society would eventually become overrun by the malicious bad faith of the intolerant. Therefore, to have a truly tolerant society,...
It's like the whole paradox of intolerance. A completely tolerant society would eventually become overrun by the malicious bad faith of the intolerant. Therefore, to have a truly tolerant society, you need to have some intolerance for those who themselves would use a tolerant society's limits for their own intolerant agenda
This paradox is just blatently untrue and I hate when people use it. You have to allow people to have full free speech (even "hate speech") but that doesn't mean you have to listen to them or...
This paradox is just blatently untrue and I hate when people use it. You have to allow people to have full free speech (even "hate speech") but that doesn't mean you have to listen to them or provide them with a means to spread their message.
Also if we banned "hate speech" what who makes the rules on what "hate speech" is because for example if someone back in the 40's controled what is and isn't "hate speech" then they could say "supporting gay rights is hate speech" and then put everyone in jail that openly supports gay rights.
A second reason this is bad is that if someone has an opinion that is "hate speech" we should easily be able to argue the counter to that point and so logical people will see that their point is moot. Now I know this isn't always the case but I think that just means we need to invest in our education systems more.
I was always under the impression that banning hate speech was for the safety of the public, and not to argue it in itself. In Canada, it's illegal to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred,...
I was always under the impression that banning hate speech was for the safety of the public, and not to argue it in itself. In Canada, it's illegal to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, and promote hatred.
A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of safety. To use your example, genocides arise from feelings that races are somehow becoming polluted or threatened. Public safety was exactly...
A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of safety. To use your example, genocides arise from feelings that races are somehow becoming polluted or threatened. Public safety was exactly how the Nazis justified rounding up Jews. They felt threatened and decided through some horrifically twisted logic that they should exterminate a class of people that they viewed as a threat.
A favorite of US politicians is the reduction of rights in the name of "National Security". Through laws enacted in this vain we end up getting things like zero tolerance policies on immigration and intelligence agencies running a surveillance dragnet over most of the world. Defending restrictions on speech in the name of public safety is unwise as people are willing to give up much more when they believe they are in danger.
I definitely don't disagree, which is actually why, though I find the idea of having book club next to KKK distasteful (and uncomfortable), I don't disagree with the ALA's policy. My comment was...
I definitely don't disagree, which is actually why, though I find the idea of having book club next to KKK distasteful (and uncomfortable), I don't disagree with the ALA's policy.
My comment was more in direct response @PsychoPitcher's comment. Maybe I should have added more to my response, but mostly, I wanted to point out that words can be more than simply words.
There was actually a pretty decent debate on the paradox of tolerance here a while back.
Edit to add:
Defending restrictions on speech in the name of public safety is unwise as people are willing to give up much more when they believe they are in danger.
I do believe there has to be a balance, but there is also definitely a line somewhere between being able to say literally anything and nothing. And there is a point where a person's freedom of expression does hinder another's right to safety.
Right. The only line I draw is when speech turns into harassment and threats. This is not the same as banning hate speech because banning hate speech is nothing more than banning things that you...
Right. The only line I draw is when speech turns into harassment and threats. This is not the same as banning hate speech because banning hate speech is nothing more than banning things that you don't agree with (no matter how messed up they may be).
I took this line from Voltaire to heart awhile ago: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That's a hard thing to do but the alternative opens the door far too wide for abuse of power. I'm mostly speaking to people here who wave the hate speech flag without logical justification. You seem to get it. I think I'll make a post about this later once I have the time to compose the thing.
I don't really see how what I said is untrue, and I feel like you're kind of just proving my point. Isn't "not listening to them" and "not providing them a platform" really just the same thing as...
I don't really see how what I said is untrue, and I feel like you're kind of just proving my point. Isn't "not listening to them" and "not providing them a platform" really just the same thing as "not being tolerant of their hate speech"? I really, truly don't see a difference. And yes, outside of people who aren't good at debating and arguing or simply don't know enough to debate and argue, we should and always are able to dismiss hateful rhetoric on its face, but I'm not sure why we should even have to do that at all. It forces those of us who already know better to engage with people who are acting in bad faith, and it disrupts regular conversation if you have to explain why white people aren't superior all the time. Just fucking shut those people down from the get go, which sounds exactly like what you're suggesting anyway.
As for who the arbiter of what is and isn't hate speech should be? It's the kind of thing where I have always felt that you know it when you see it, but I think there are objective cases that are even more visibly obvious
The ALA was talking about whether hate groups should be allowed to use library meeting rooms. What you and SuperGracchiBros said sounded like (maybe I'm misunderstadning) that that should not be...
The ALA was talking about whether hate groups should be allowed to use library meeting rooms. What you and SuperGracchiBros said sounded like (maybe I'm misunderstadning) that that should not be the case. I.e., hate groups should not be entitled to use library meeting rooms because that would be tolerant of intolerance.
What PsychoPitcher was saying, to me, was more of "let them use meeting rooms, let them use anything they want, but don't pay credence to what they say". It's not be intolerant of intolerance: it's being tolerant of intolerance.
And I agree, to a point. The Paradox of Tolerance is commonly exaggerated, I think. Karl Popper (who invented the term) said pretty clearly "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise". The idea is that talking about intolerance is fine, so long as it does not impact other people's abilities to be tolerance. The KKK having a private meeting in a library meeting room does not affect my ability to be tolerant of other people.
(Popper argued that we shouldn't ignore hate speech, actually, but meet it head on with rational argument)
I'm sorry but I just do not think that the KKK should ever have any platform to practice their ideologies anywhere. Ever. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but allowing the KKK to use a...
I'm sorry but I just do not think that the KKK should ever have any platform to practice their ideologies anywhere. Ever. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but allowing the KKK to use a public library to talk about how they want to erase people of color and bring forth the era of white supremacy isn't just being tolerant of the intolerant. It's fucking stupid. There are some modes of thought that I think it's ok to do away with completely, and the ideology they represent is one of them
It's making it's illegal that I disagree with. I as a person can say "you can't use my microphone to spew your bs" but I don't think the government should be limiting it aka arresting people
It's making it's illegal that I disagree with. I as a person can say "you can't use my microphone to spew your bs" but I don't think the government should be limiting it aka arresting people
Exactly. You cannot place bans on what people are allowed to say. That is a tyrannical practice and shouldn't be advocated for. I'm honestly astounded at how many people on this site call for the...
Exactly. You cannot place bans on what people are allowed to say. That is a tyrannical practice and shouldn't be advocated for. I'm honestly astounded at how many people on this site call for the restriction of speech (including Demios). The US constitution put free speech into the first amendment for a reason. We should never let anyone decide between what is permissible speech and what is "hate speech" for the exact reasons you outlined.
I used to be a really strong proponent of free speech. I once stood up at an all-hands meeting at reddit and advocated that we shouldn't be banning or removing anything that we weren't legally...
I used to be a really strong proponent of free speech. I once stood up at an all-hands meeting at reddit and advocated that we shouldn't be banning or removing anything that we weren't legally required to. Then I spent years deeply involved in seeing the actual effects of applying that kind of mindset to the internet, and changed my mind. People that think absolute free speech on the internet is a good idea are either naive (like I was), or willfully ignoring the serious consequences.
The constitution and first amendment were written hundreds of years ago, in effectively a completely different world. It makes no sense to act as though the authors understood what the implications of those decisions would be on technology that they never could have imagined.
For me, the difference between reddit and the wider notion of free speech is that any private entity should have the right to restrict speech within reasonable bounds. Reddit (or tildes) shouldn't...
People that think absolute free speech on the internet is a good idea are either naive (like I was), or willfully ignoring the serious consequences.
The constitution and first amendment were written hundreds of years ago, in effectively a completely different world. It makes no sense to act as though the authors understood what the implications of those decisions would be on technology that they never could have imagined.
For me, the difference between reddit and the wider notion of free speech is that any private entity should have the right to restrict speech within reasonable bounds. Reddit (or tildes) shouldn't have to host hate speech, bullying, /r/catsstandingup, or any number of other things that may go against their vision for the site.
The government, however, should not have the ability to restrict speech absent a compelling public interest (fire in a crowded theater, terroristic threats, etc.). Common carriers/critical infrastructure should probably face higher levels of scrutiny as well - ISPs shouldn't be able to block political messages they disagree with, because that's contrary to public interest.
Those are my thoughts as well. Anyone who wants to censor their private platform is welcome to do so. As long as there is alternatives to go to, then I see no harm. However these types of...
Those are my thoughts as well. Anyone who wants to censor their private platform is welcome to do so. As long as there is alternatives to go to, then I see no harm. However these types of restrictions should never come at the governmental level and I believe that is one thing the United States has gotten right. When I see restrictions on what people are allowed to say coming down from such high authorities as say the Canadian government, it worries me. The practice of preventing hate speech sounds all well and good but it is very vulnerable to abuse.
I don't even think there must be alternatives. If there isn't such a platform, you're free to start your own, absent structural issues (i.e. this doesn't work for ISPs). The market isn't obligated...
As long as there is alternatives to go to, then I see no harm.
I don't even think there must be alternatives. If there isn't such a platform, you're free to start your own, absent structural issues (i.e. this doesn't work for ISPs). The market isn't obligated to create a racist reddit just to allow dissemination of hateful stuff on a web platform.
I agree, the market isn't obligated but governments should be. Thats the way it is in the US and although it isn't always pretty it helps to keep the peace. If we can't talk our issues out then...
I agree, the market isn't obligated but governments should be. Thats the way it is in the US and although it isn't always pretty it helps to keep the peace. If we can't talk our issues out then the alternative is violence. Its not a perfect solution, but I believe its better than suppression. I'm sure the alt-right can make their own forum site.
I can see why you would censor speech on certain sites. Nobody is obligated to host any sort of prejudice on a privately owned site or property. My problem comes when this sort of thing gets...
I can see why you would censor speech on certain sites. Nobody is obligated to host any sort of prejudice on a privately owned site or property. My problem comes when this sort of thing gets legislated. In my opinion, no government should have the right to deny speech unless it is harassment or making direct threats. I just think that it opens the door for overreach and abuse of power. If a corrupt leader or official comes along then they have an easy censorship tool. I'm sure that hate speech laws come with good intentions, but I'm worried about the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point to topic is so new that it's hard to tell.
I don't understand how you don't see allowing the KKK to use the library for... whatever, isn't a kind of harassment and direct threat to the people who live in that community
I don't understand how you don't see allowing the KKK to use the library for... whatever, isn't a kind of harassment and direct threat to the people who live in that community
So these people are entirely irredeemable in your eyes. I get it. I believe that instead of suppressing these people, a better alternative is to try and talk things out. Suppression is much worse...
So these people are entirely irredeemable in your eyes. I get it.
I believe that their very existence is an incitement of violence and although I understand that you're saying that they are currently protected, but I'm saying they shouldn't be.
I believe that instead of suppressing these people, a better alternative is to try and talk things out. Suppression is much worse and as I've outlined before it only leads to violence and real violence at that, not violent speech.
I think that's a great idea. Just not at a public library. Also, we need to quell the rise. You and I both know that we can't get rid of it through either suppression or "talking it out", but I...
I think that's a great idea. Just not at a public library.
Also, we need to quell the rise. You and I both know that we can't get rid of it through either suppression or "talking it out", but I think there's definitely a way to deter it through real life moderation
Real life moderation is key. Something has got to be done and it will take a lot to fix the situation we've found ourselves in. Unfortunately the only real form of it that I have seen is by...
Real life moderation is key. Something has got to be done and it will take a lot to fix the situation we've found ourselves in. Unfortunately the only real form of it that I have seen is by fighting fire with fire (ANTIFA and sometimes the cops). Usually that leads to riots though but it's not like I believe trying to reason with a mob will be helpful either. Perhaps we need a bit of both, just not at the level of amending the constitution.
I'd just point out that we're talking about public aka government funded libraries so this is a 1st amendment issue, not a "OMG why won't FaceBook let me post these lynching memes" that the right...
I'd just point out that we're talking about public aka government funded libraries so this is a 1st amendment issue, not a "OMG why won't FaceBook let me post these lynching memes" that the right is constantly in a manufactured uproar about.
It is definitely a thing. Under current US law hate speech is covered under free speech.
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity
It is definitely a thing. Under current US law hate speech is covered under free speech.
For good reason. If hate speech was not covered under US law then there would be more censorship. Do you know why Voat is a cesspool? Hint: its not because they are a free speech platform, it is...
For good reason. If hate speech was not covered under US law then there would be more censorship. Do you know why Voat is a cesspool? Hint: its not because they are a free speech platform, it is because so many other sites on the internet put restrictions on free speech that these people have nowhere else to go. What do you think will happen if we ban hate speech? Will the racists just disappear while everyone else forgets about them? No. They will just become resentful and isolated. When that happens it opens the door for violence and trust me that is no viable alternative.
I think you would do good to learn about Darryl Davis' approach to these things. This man has gotten 200 KKK members to quit the clan just by talking to them. But there is one part of this...
I think you would do good to learn about Darryl Davis' approach to these things. This man has gotten 200 KKK members to quit the clan just by talking to them. But there is one part of this interview that I would like to highlight:
That began to chip away at their ideology because when two enemies are talking, they're not fighting. It's when the talking ceases that the ground becomes fertile for violence.
If me and you have an intense ideological argument and we can't work it out by talking, what happens next? We fight. That's one of the reasons why wars are started. Just look at the civil war or the cold war. Those are two conflicts almost completely based on ideological difference and both were terrible in their own right. I know its hard, but try to be sympathetic. Don't suppress rascists, try and reason with them. Its much better than the alternative.
Quarantine is a reasonable strategy, even if it is imposed by a number of independent private actors who don't want to be party to hate speech. You don't have the right to be welcomed into society...
Quarantine is a reasonable strategy, even if it is imposed by a number of independent private actors who don't want to be party to hate speech. You don't have the right to be welcomed into society to spread your views publicly, even if you do have the right to promote those views. You can preach on a street corner, but I am not required to stop and listen, or even to take out my headphones.
How so? There's definitely speech that's hateful and speech that is of a violent nature that goes beyond just regular aggression or violence and into the territory of being based solely on the...
How so? There's definitely speech that's hateful and speech that is of a violent nature that goes beyond just regular aggression or violence and into the territory of being based solely on the irrational hatred of others
Though this headline isn't very forgiving, the ALA is right. They're referring to public libraries, where hate speech must be allowed if they allow other types of speech - they'd get sued and lose...
Though this headline isn't very forgiving, the ALA is right. They're referring to public libraries, where hate speech must be allowed if they allow other types of speech - they'd get sued and lose very quickly if they were to allow people to hand out pamphlets against abortion but tell pro-abortion activists to leave, or if they allowed BLM to organize meetings but not the KKK, etc. Private libraries are not bound to the first amendment, and the ALA is not attempting to claim they are (to my knowledge). From the article:
"Public libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum. A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but if it chooses to do so, it cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech. This encompasses religious, political, and hate speech.
"If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms, then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities.”
In my opinion, bringing up hate groups was entirely unnecessary. They could have just as easily said "you cannot exclude groups based on their ideology or viewpoints," and that would encompass hate groups without giving them an explicit invitation. It feels like a PR stunt, and I worry that this could negatively affect libraries in areas with large minority populations since hate groups might feel empowered to assert their first amendment rights there.
How can ALA go from having Michelle Obama as the keynote speaker at their largest event of the year, to allowing Klan meeting in libraries, all in under a month?
How can ALA go from having Michelle Obama as the keynote speaker at their largest event of the year, to allowing Klan meeting in libraries, all in under a month?
The article sheds some light on it. This is the relevant revision: This actually quite reasonable because they are specifically referring to publicly funded libraries. So long as a group is not...
The article sheds some light on it. This is the relevant revision:
"Public libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum. A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but if it chooses to do so, it cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech. This encompasses religious, political, and hate speech.
"If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms, then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities.”
This actually quite reasonable because they are specifically referring to publicly funded libraries. So long as a group is not being disruptive or breaking the law, they have to be treated the same as everyone else. A public library that allowed anti-abortion activists to hand out pamphlets but not pro-abortion activists would very quickly lose in court for infringing upon the first amendment rights of the pro-choice activists.
However, I don't think this was a good way to word it. You can just as easily say "if you allow groups to reserve space or otherwise organize in your library, you cannot discriminate based on viewpoint or ideology" without opening the doors and inviting in the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood with open arms. This feels like it was intended to get them thrust into the spotlight as a PR stunt considering how much better it could have been stated.
These groups existed far before the Trump era but I do agree with you that they are correlated. But correlation is not causation and Trump did not cause this. These people have been hidden in the...
These groups existed far before the Trump era but I do agree with you that they are correlated. But correlation is not causation and Trump did not cause this. These people have been hidden in the shadows of society and now they feel comfortable enough to show their face. Racism and Xenophobia have always been a thing and Trump did not single-handedly bring it back from hiding. He is a symptom of the problem but not the cause. If he loses the 2020 election and we get a less volatile president we will still have the alt-right. They will not just disappear overnight. This problem stems from a much deeper source embedded in our culture. You might already know this but your comment certainly didn't show it and I think it's important to emphasize this aspect of the problem.
No I definitely was aware. I casually chose to use the word correlation, although I'd argue that he's the active cause of their emboldened behavior. They might have been bubbling under the surface...
No I definitely was aware. I casually chose to use the word correlation, although I'd argue that he's the active cause of their emboldened behavior. They might have been bubbling under the surface in the later Obama years, especially by the time Ferguson happened, but I truly believe it was Trump's behavior and rhetoric that really pulled them above the surface again.
No. No no no no. The protection of free speech is not there to protect POPULAR speech. Popular speech does not need protected. It is there to protect UNPOPULAR speech. Imagine if there were no 1st...
No. No no no no.
The protection of free speech is not there to protect POPULAR speech. Popular speech does not need protected. It is there to protect UNPOPULAR speech.
Imagine if there were no 1st amendment and we were able to criminalize speech for equality during the civil rights era. That is the world we would need to live in if we wanted to criminalize the KKKs brand of speech.
No, no no no no no. That's just bullshit and you know it. There's a difference between unpopular speech, speech that goes against norms, and speech that is directly tied to ideas that are driven...
No, no no no no no. That's just bullshit and you know it. There's a difference between unpopular speech, speech that goes against norms, and speech that is directly tied to ideas that are driven specifically by the hatred of others and by dangerously outdated modes of thought. The rhetoric of the KKK falls under the last group, and the civil Rights era speech falls under the first two. And, as far as I can remember, many people in the civil Rights movement were kinda punished criminally for their speech. Rosa Parks got fuckin arrested for protesting a norm
Not OP. You're missing the point. Libraries are public spaces funded by our tax dollars. Much like public universities, they cannot stop others from exercising their first amendment rights....
Not OP. You're missing the point.
Libraries are public spaces funded by our tax dollars. Much like public universities, they cannot stop others from exercising their first amendment rights. Businesses are under no-such restrictions and are free to censor any speech for any reason.
Well, since hate speech is kinda looked down upon by some people
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. I hope sarcastic. Hate speech is terrible and not productive to any kind of discussion.
Why? Why is allowing it in libraries of all places ok? If we're talking solely about a place where you can observe hateful or racist literature for the sole purpose of historical introspection and...
Why? Why is allowing it in libraries of all places ok? If we're talking solely about a place where you can observe hateful or racist literature for the sole purpose of historical introspection and reflection, that's ok I guess, but I don't think you should be able to go pick up a copy of The Turner Diaries at your local library
The ALA is actually pretty liberal on most things, not just hate speech. They've historically opposed filtering/blocking web content because they see censorship of the web as a danger to free...
The ALA is actually pretty liberal on most things, not just hate speech. They've historically opposed filtering/blocking web content because they see censorship of the web as a danger to free speech. Given that, it's not particularly surprising that they don't want to censor other groups' speech either, though I suspect if you tried to schedule a KKK meeting at your local library, you'd get a bunch of librarians demonstrating outside.
Libraries are an ally on so many issues - free speech, right to access information, net neutrality, etc. - it's hard to argue that this stance is inconsistent with their other positions and general goals of educating the public.
I mean, I'm ok with the library blocking access to porn. Nobody should be able to jerk off in the library. I feel the same way about the KKK. I'm ok with their rights being filtered as an effort...
I mean, I'm ok with the library blocking access to porn. Nobody should be able to jerk off in the library. I feel the same way about the KKK. I'm ok with their rights being filtered as an effort to block access to a type of thinking that advocates for violence against black people
You're ok with others rights being "filtered"? That's nothing more than a euphemism for the word denied. What you essentially said is that "I'm ok with other peoples rights being denied as long I...
You're ok with others rights being "filtered"? That's nothing more than a euphemism for the word denied. What you essentially said is that "I'm ok with other peoples rights being denied as long I disagree with them."
What happened to all men are created equal? Personally I don't agree with anything hate groups have to say, but that doesn't mean they should be denied the right to say it.
No, I think that's exactly what it means. If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs. I'd be no more willing...
No, I think that's exactly what it means. If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs. I'd be no more willing to grant the KKK a platform that I would be to grant ISIS a platform
"If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs." I know you won't admit it, but you just proved to me that you...
"If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs." I know you won't admit it, but you just proved to me that you are using euphemisms to make your point.
If its a private business then you have the right to choose who you provide a platform to. However if you are the government than you have no business deciding who gets a platform and who doesn't. This article was focusing on a public library. These are government funded institutions and are bound by the 1st amendment. It would be illegal and discriminatory to do anything but what they are currently doing. As another user said if they chose to deny these people access to the meeting rooms then there is no way it could hold up in court.
Well for one, the 1st amendment specifically doesn't cover speech that incites violence or threatens others. If any of this speech turns violent, then they're to be kicked out, period. However,...
Well for one, the 1st amendment specifically doesn't cover speech that incites violence or threatens others. If any of this speech turns violent, then they're to be kicked out, period.
However, even if it's "only" open racism, you're failing to consider the effects on everyone else. For example, I think the porn example above was a good point; imagine if you have a group of people that regularly use the library for group masturbation, or to be more specific to the use case, bring and browse porn magazines. Who has a greater right to use the library? The children who use a library to study and learn, or the people who want to read porn magazines? If we tolerate open expressions of racism or homophobia in libraries, that's going to drive away people who are the targets of that speech, and they have just as much a right to use the library as anyone else. Your ticket gives you the right to ride on a seat in the bus; it does not give you the right to threaten the other passengers.
You are right about the threatening part of the first amendment. That is absolutely not covered. But my problem comes with this sentence: "However, even if it's "only" open racism, you're failing...
You are right about the threatening part of the first amendment. That is absolutely not covered. But my problem comes with this sentence:
"However, even if it's "only" open racism, you're failing to consider the effects on everyone else."
This is a terrible thing to base criteria for free speech on because you have to be wiling to offend the people around you if you disagree with them. The civil rights movement is a prime example of that.
Your porn example is also invalid because masturbating in public is considered a lewd act and is illegal. Masturbating is not speech. Viewing porn in a public library can also be illegal if the following criteria are met:
"the average person, applying contempora"members on one's community deem it to be lewd and of the prurient interestry community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
This was a supreme court decision ruled on in 1973. Look up the Miller test. Given this criteria, I absolutely believe viewing porn in a public library would be illegal and would not be a free speech issue.
But either way you're asking someone to leave for library for what they're saying / consuming to other people. If a group of people are loudly saying explicitly sexual things that children can...
But either way you're asking someone to leave for library for what they're saying / consuming to other people. If a group of people are loudly saying explicitly sexual things that children can hear, why is that grounds to be removed from the library, but loudly expressing racial supremacist remarks isn't...? Both make the library very uncomfortable for other groups of patrons, and children / patrons of other races are more valuable to a library then a group of perverts or racists, is what I'm saying. Your rights stop when you start infringing on other people's...
This is a terrible thing to base criteria for free speech on because you have to be wiling to offend the people around you if you disagree with them. The civil rights movement is a prime example of that.
...If I understand this right, you believe that civil rights activists are on the same level as neo-nazis in terms of how offensive their beliefs are...?
Nobody is required to stay in that library and listen to racists speak. If this went to court than I'm sure the ruling would be compromising between both parties or in favor of the racists. You...
Your rights stop when you start infringing on other people's...
Nobody is required to stay in that library and listen to racists speak. If this went to court than I'm sure the ruling would be compromising between both parties or in favor of the racists. You cannot outright deny a platform for speech in a public library as long as they are not actively threatening people. Period.
...If I understand this right, you believe that civil rights activists are on the same level as neo-nazis in terms of how offensive their beliefs are...?
Not at all. I'm just trying to show you how these hate speech policies can be abused. The civil rights movement certainly offended a lot of racist people, but they weren't able to stop it due to the fact that they didn't want to hear what MLK, Marcus Garvey, and Malcom X wanted to say.
...Then does that mean you're also against libraries banning speech that's too loud, because it's protected speech? Are you against the library banning bullying (not physically, but instead...
Nobody is required to stay in that library and listen to racists speak. If this went to court than I'm sure the ruling would be compromising between both parties or in favor of the racists. You cannot outright deny a platform for speech in a public library as long as they are not actively threatening people. Period.
...Then does that mean you're also against libraries banning speech that's too loud, because it's protected speech? Are you against the library banning bullying (not physically, but instead emotionally, threatening) speech, because it's protected? Are you against the library banning sexually explicit discussion in the children's section, because it's protected speech?
These are all real life examples where speech is indeed restricted. And I have to ask, if you believe in all of these examples, why do you hold such an absolutist stance? Can you cite an example of a positive result that would be prevented by any of these above rules, but wouldn't be by a rule that "any speech that isn't directly threatening is allowed"?
I find all of these appalling, and directly against the purpose of the library being accessible to everyone. This is just me personally, but if this is a choice between free speech and use of a public building, then increasingly maybe free speech isn't as important as I thought it was...
None of those are protected by US law, you can get kicked out of the library for doing these things. I'm unsure about sexually explicit discussion though. Some might say that this is a slippery...
...Then does that mean you're also against libraries banning speech that's too loud, because it's protected speech? Are you against the library banning bullying (not physically, but instead emotionally, threatening) speech, because it's protected? Are you against the library banning sexually explicit discussion in the children's section, because it's protected speech?
None of those are protected by US law, you can get kicked out of the library for doing these things. I'm unsure about sexually explicit discussion though.
These are all real life examples where speech is indeed restricted. And I have to ask, if you believe in all of these examples, why do you hold such an absolutist stance? Can you cite an example of a positive result that would be prevented by any of these above rules, but wouldn't be by a rule that "any speech that isn't directly threatening is allowed"?
Some might say that this is a slippery slope fallacy, but I believe that legislating this type of thing opens the door to abuse of power. I don't agree with any of the practices you outlined above, but that does not give me or the government the right to ban them from being said.
This is just me personally, but if this is a choice between free speech and use of a public building, then increasingly maybe free speech isn't as important as I thought it was...
Ouch. I honestly don't know what to say to that one.
But there is a limit to freedom of speech. It's not consequence free, and speech that actually incites violence isn't protected. I believe that the KKK's hate rhetoric is one of those types of...
But there is a limit to freedom of speech. It's not consequence free, and speech that actually incites violence isn't protected. I believe that the KKK's hate rhetoric is one of those types of unprotected speech. You can't censor these people entirely. It's not possible. But we can and should be trying to restrict their ability to spread their messages. I fully believe that. There is no function of their group other than to promote violence against large groups of other people, particularly American people. The government should not protect that. The first amendment does not extend to this mindset
Free speech absolutely applies to the KKK. The government protects them under the first amendment. The only thing the first amendment does not protect are threats and harassment and they know this...
Free speech absolutely applies to the KKK. The government protects them under the first amendment. The only thing the first amendment does not protect are threats and harassment and they know this so they say things like "the white race is superior" instead of "we are going to murder all black people". If the KKK were to start stalking and verbally harrasing minorities than abosultly that would be illegal. But stating their views is not illegal and never will be. There is a fine line.
That is why you never see the police intervening in KKK rallies. The right to peacefully assemble is also protected by the first amendment as well.
I believe that their very existence is an incitement of violence and although I understand that you're saying that they are currently protected, but I'm saying they shouldn't be. That's that....
I believe that their very existence is an incitement of violence and although I understand that you're saying that they are currently protected, but I'm saying they shouldn't be. That's that. Because we know that it's not just about the lie about white people being superior. Their known goal is the extermination of non whites
Germany, among many other countries, has very strict rules against Holocaust denial.
This shows that it's possible to have reasonable limitations on speech without turning into an Orwellian hellscape of memory holes and thought police.
The paradox of tolerance is a good guide.
One should be intolerant of speech, groups, activities, individuals, etc., which itself/themselves advocates intolerance.
Your elected representatives who write, refine and reform the hate speech laws, and the judiciary who ensure those laws don’t violate citizens established fundamental rights and then make case-by-case rulings based on said laws and legal precedent. That’s the way it works here in Canada and most of the Western world and we’re doing alright by it.
The folks making laws right now are doing a heck of a job. /s
It's like the whole paradox of intolerance. A completely tolerant society would eventually become overrun by the malicious bad faith of the intolerant. Therefore, to have a truly tolerant society, you need to have some intolerance for those who themselves would use a tolerant society's limits for their own intolerant agenda
This paradox is just blatently untrue and I hate when people use it. You have to allow people to have full free speech (even "hate speech") but that doesn't mean you have to listen to them or provide them with a means to spread their message.
Also if we banned "hate speech" what who makes the rules on what "hate speech" is because for example if someone back in the 40's controled what is and isn't "hate speech" then they could say "supporting gay rights is hate speech" and then put everyone in jail that openly supports gay rights.
A second reason this is bad is that if someone has an opinion that is "hate speech" we should easily be able to argue the counter to that point and so logical people will see that their point is moot. Now I know this isn't always the case but I think that just means we need to invest in our education systems more.
I was always under the impression that banning hate speech was for the safety of the public, and not to argue it in itself. In Canada, it's illegal to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, and promote hatred.
It absolutely is for the benefit of the public
A lot of terrible things have been done in the name of safety. To use your example, genocides arise from feelings that races are somehow becoming polluted or threatened. Public safety was exactly how the Nazis justified rounding up Jews. They felt threatened and decided through some horrifically twisted logic that they should exterminate a class of people that they viewed as a threat.
A favorite of US politicians is the reduction of rights in the name of "National Security". Through laws enacted in this vain we end up getting things like zero tolerance policies on immigration and intelligence agencies running a surveillance dragnet over most of the world. Defending restrictions on speech in the name of public safety is unwise as people are willing to give up much more when they believe they are in danger.
I definitely don't disagree, which is actually why, though I find the idea of having book club next to KKK distasteful (and uncomfortable), I don't disagree with the ALA's policy.
My comment was more in direct response @PsychoPitcher's comment. Maybe I should have added more to my response, but mostly, I wanted to point out that words can be more than simply words.
There was actually a pretty decent debate on the paradox of tolerance here a while back.
Edit to add:
I do believe there has to be a balance, but there is also definitely a line somewhere between being able to say literally anything and nothing. And there is a point where a person's freedom of expression does hinder another's right to safety.
Right. The only line I draw is when speech turns into harassment and threats. This is not the same as banning hate speech because banning hate speech is nothing more than banning things that you don't agree with (no matter how messed up they may be).
I took this line from Voltaire to heart awhile ago: "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That's a hard thing to do but the alternative opens the door far too wide for abuse of power. I'm mostly speaking to people here who wave the hate speech flag without logical justification. You seem to get it. I think I'll make a post about this later once I have the time to compose the thing.
I don't really see how what I said is untrue, and I feel like you're kind of just proving my point. Isn't "not listening to them" and "not providing them a platform" really just the same thing as "not being tolerant of their hate speech"? I really, truly don't see a difference. And yes, outside of people who aren't good at debating and arguing or simply don't know enough to debate and argue, we should and always are able to dismiss hateful rhetoric on its face, but I'm not sure why we should even have to do that at all. It forces those of us who already know better to engage with people who are acting in bad faith, and it disrupts regular conversation if you have to explain why white people aren't superior all the time. Just fucking shut those people down from the get go, which sounds exactly like what you're suggesting anyway.
As for who the arbiter of what is and isn't hate speech should be? It's the kind of thing where I have always felt that you know it when you see it, but I think there are objective cases that are even more visibly obvious
The ALA was talking about whether hate groups should be allowed to use library meeting rooms. What you and SuperGracchiBros said sounded like (maybe I'm misunderstadning) that that should not be the case. I.e., hate groups should not be entitled to use library meeting rooms because that would be tolerant of intolerance.
What PsychoPitcher was saying, to me, was more of "let them use meeting rooms, let them use anything they want, but don't pay credence to what they say". It's not be intolerant of intolerance: it's being tolerant of intolerance.
And I agree, to a point. The Paradox of Tolerance is commonly exaggerated, I think. Karl Popper (who invented the term) said pretty clearly "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise". The idea is that talking about intolerance is fine, so long as it does not impact other people's abilities to be tolerance. The KKK having a private meeting in a library meeting room does not affect my ability to be tolerant of other people.
(Popper argued that we shouldn't ignore hate speech, actually, but meet it head on with rational argument)
I'm sorry but I just do not think that the KKK should ever have any platform to practice their ideologies anywhere. Ever. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but allowing the KKK to use a public library to talk about how they want to erase people of color and bring forth the era of white supremacy isn't just being tolerant of the intolerant. It's fucking stupid. There are some modes of thought that I think it's ok to do away with completely, and the ideology they represent is one of them
It's making it's illegal that I disagree with. I as a person can say "you can't use my microphone to spew your bs" but I don't think the government should be limiting it aka arresting people
And, I think that government has a duty to prevent dangerous people from meeting to conduct business on that government property
Exactly. You cannot place bans on what people are allowed to say. That is a tyrannical practice and shouldn't be advocated for. I'm honestly astounded at how many people on this site call for the restriction of speech (including Demios). The US constitution put free speech into the first amendment for a reason. We should never let anyone decide between what is permissible speech and what is "hate speech" for the exact reasons you outlined.
I used to be a really strong proponent of free speech. I once stood up at an all-hands meeting at reddit and advocated that we shouldn't be banning or removing anything that we weren't legally required to. Then I spent years deeply involved in seeing the actual effects of applying that kind of mindset to the internet, and changed my mind. People that think absolute free speech on the internet is a good idea are either naive (like I was), or willfully ignoring the serious consequences.
The constitution and first amendment were written hundreds of years ago, in effectively a completely different world. It makes no sense to act as though the authors understood what the implications of those decisions would be on technology that they never could have imagined.
For me, the difference between reddit and the wider notion of free speech is that any private entity should have the right to restrict speech within reasonable bounds. Reddit (or tildes) shouldn't have to host hate speech, bullying, /r/catsstandingup, or any number of other things that may go against their vision for the site.
The government, however, should not have the ability to restrict speech absent a compelling public interest (fire in a crowded theater, terroristic threats, etc.). Common carriers/critical infrastructure should probably face higher levels of scrutiny as well - ISPs shouldn't be able to block political messages they disagree with, because that's contrary to public interest.
Those are my thoughts as well. Anyone who wants to censor their private platform is welcome to do so. As long as there is alternatives to go to, then I see no harm. However these types of restrictions should never come at the governmental level and I believe that is one thing the United States has gotten right. When I see restrictions on what people are allowed to say coming down from such high authorities as say the Canadian government, it worries me. The practice of preventing hate speech sounds all well and good but it is very vulnerable to abuse.
I don't even think there must be alternatives. If there isn't such a platform, you're free to start your own, absent structural issues (i.e. this doesn't work for ISPs). The market isn't obligated to create a racist reddit just to allow dissemination of hateful stuff on a web platform.
I agree, the market isn't obligated but governments should be. Thats the way it is in the US and although it isn't always pretty it helps to keep the peace. If we can't talk our issues out then the alternative is violence. Its not a perfect solution, but I believe its better than suppression. I'm sure the alt-right can make their own forum site.
I can see why you would censor speech on certain sites. Nobody is obligated to host any sort of prejudice on a privately owned site or property. My problem comes when this sort of thing gets legislated. In my opinion, no government should have the right to deny speech unless it is harassment or making direct threats. I just think that it opens the door for overreach and abuse of power. If a corrupt leader or official comes along then they have an easy censorship tool. I'm sure that hate speech laws come with good intentions, but I'm worried about the future. Maybe I'm wrong, but at this point to topic is so new that it's hard to tell.
I don't understand how you don't see allowing the KKK to use the library for... whatever, isn't a kind of harassment and direct threat to the people who live in that community
I'm similarly confused as to why you think their mere presence in the library constitutes harrasment and direct threats.
Because their entire raison d'etre is to eradicate races they consider "inferior". You seem smart. I shouldn't have to explain this to you
So these people are entirely irredeemable in your eyes. I get it.
I believe that instead of suppressing these people, a better alternative is to try and talk things out. Suppression is much worse and as I've outlined before it only leads to violence and real violence at that, not violent speech.
I think that's a great idea. Just not at a public library.
Also, we need to quell the rise. You and I both know that we can't get rid of it through either suppression or "talking it out", but I think there's definitely a way to deter it through real life moderation
Real life moderation is key. Something has got to be done and it will take a lot to fix the situation we've found ourselves in. Unfortunately the only real form of it that I have seen is by fighting fire with fire (ANTIFA and sometimes the cops). Usually that leads to riots though but it's not like I believe trying to reason with a mob will be helpful either. Perhaps we need a bit of both, just not at the level of amending the constitution.
Why is it blatantly untrue? Can you point to some evidence of that?
I'd just point out that we're talking about public aka government funded libraries so this is a 1st amendment issue, not a "OMG why won't FaceBook let me post these lynching memes" that the right is constantly in a manufactured uproar about.
These are public libraries beholden to the constitution. Private libraries are free to ban whatever they want.
There is no such thing as hate speech though.
It is definitely a thing. Under current US law hate speech is covered under free speech.
For good reason. If hate speech was not covered under US law then there would be more censorship. Do you know why Voat is a cesspool? Hint: its not because they are a free speech platform, it is because so many other sites on the internet put restrictions on free speech that these people have nowhere else to go. What do you think will happen if we ban hate speech? Will the racists just disappear while everyone else forgets about them? No. They will just become resentful and isolated. When that happens it opens the door for violence and trust me that is no viable alternative.
I think you would do good to learn about Darryl Davis' approach to these things. This man has gotten 200 KKK members to quit the clan just by talking to them. But there is one part of this interview that I would like to highlight:
If me and you have an intense ideological argument and we can't work it out by talking, what happens next? We fight. That's one of the reasons why wars are started. Just look at the civil war or the cold war. Those are two conflicts almost completely based on ideological difference and both were terrible in their own right. I know its hard, but try to be sympathetic. Don't suppress rascists, try and reason with them. Its much better than the alternative.
Quarantine is a reasonable strategy, even if it is imposed by a number of independent private actors who don't want to be party to hate speech. You don't have the right to be welcomed into society to spread your views publicly, even if you do have the right to promote those views. You can preach on a street corner, but I am not required to stop and listen, or even to take out my headphones.
How so? There's definitely speech that's hateful and speech that is of a violent nature that goes beyond just regular aggression or violence and into the territory of being based solely on the irrational hatred of others
Though this headline isn't very forgiving, the ALA is right. They're referring to public libraries, where hate speech must be allowed if they allow other types of speech - they'd get sued and lose very quickly if they were to allow people to hand out pamphlets against abortion but tell pro-abortion activists to leave, or if they allowed BLM to organize meetings but not the KKK, etc. Private libraries are not bound to the first amendment, and the ALA is not attempting to claim they are (to my knowledge). From the article:
In my opinion, bringing up hate groups was entirely unnecessary. They could have just as easily said "you cannot exclude groups based on their ideology or viewpoints," and that would encompass hate groups without giving them an explicit invitation. It feels like a PR stunt, and I worry that this could negatively affect libraries in areas with large minority populations since hate groups might feel empowered to assert their first amendment rights there.
Edit: Grammar.
How can ALA go from having Michelle Obama as the keynote speaker at their largest event of the year, to allowing Klan meeting in libraries, all in under a month?
The article sheds some light on it. This is the relevant revision:
This actually quite reasonable because they are specifically referring to publicly funded libraries. So long as a group is not being disruptive or breaking the law, they have to be treated the same as everyone else. A public library that allowed anti-abortion activists to hand out pamphlets but not pro-abortion activists would very quickly lose in court for infringing upon the first amendment rights of the pro-choice activists.
However, I don't think this was a good way to word it. You can just as easily say "if you allow groups to reserve space or otherwise organize in your library, you cannot discriminate based on viewpoint or ideology" without opening the doors and inviting in the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood with open arms. This feels like it was intended to get them thrust into the spotlight as a PR stunt considering how much better it could have been stated.
This is Trump's America
This is a first amendment issue and it has nothing to do with who is in office. I hate Trump too but this has absolutely nothing to do with him.
There's no way to deny that his rhetoric has emboldened these groups. There's a direct correlation
These groups existed far before the Trump era but I do agree with you that they are correlated. But correlation is not causation and Trump did not cause this. These people have been hidden in the shadows of society and now they feel comfortable enough to show their face. Racism and Xenophobia have always been a thing and Trump did not single-handedly bring it back from hiding. He is a symptom of the problem but not the cause. If he loses the 2020 election and we get a less volatile president we will still have the alt-right. They will not just disappear overnight. This problem stems from a much deeper source embedded in our culture. You might already know this but your comment certainly didn't show it and I think it's important to emphasize this aspect of the problem.
No I definitely was aware. I casually chose to use the word correlation, although I'd argue that he's the active cause of their emboldened behavior. They might have been bubbling under the surface in the later Obama years, especially by the time Ferguson happened, but I truly believe it was Trump's behavior and rhetoric that really pulled them above the surface again.
No. No no no no.
The protection of free speech is not there to protect POPULAR speech. Popular speech does not need protected. It is there to protect UNPOPULAR speech.
Imagine if there were no 1st amendment and we were able to criminalize speech for equality during the civil rights era. That is the world we would need to live in if we wanted to criminalize the KKKs brand of speech.
No, no no no no no. That's just bullshit and you know it. There's a difference between unpopular speech, speech that goes against norms, and speech that is directly tied to ideas that are driven specifically by the hatred of others and by dangerously outdated modes of thought. The rhetoric of the KKK falls under the last group, and the civil Rights era speech falls under the first two. And, as far as I can remember, many people in the civil Rights movement were kinda punished criminally for their speech. Rosa Parks got fuckin arrested for protesting a norm
I think this is a great choice, even for a library. Every business must do this.
What do you mean, most businesses don't provide public space.
Well, since hate speech is kinda looked down upon by some people, i think its great that the libraries allow hate speech. :)
Not OP. You're missing the point.
Libraries are public spaces funded by our tax dollars. Much like public universities, they cannot stop others from exercising their first amendment rights. Businesses are under no-such restrictions and are free to censor any speech for any reason.
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. I hope sarcastic. Hate speech is terrible and not productive to any kind of discussion.
Why? Why is allowing it in libraries of all places ok? If we're talking solely about a place where you can observe hateful or racist literature for the sole purpose of historical introspection and reflection, that's ok I guess, but I don't think you should be able to go pick up a copy of The Turner Diaries at your local library
The ALA is actually pretty liberal on most things, not just hate speech. They've historically opposed filtering/blocking web content because they see censorship of the web as a danger to free speech. Given that, it's not particularly surprising that they don't want to censor other groups' speech either, though I suspect if you tried to schedule a KKK meeting at your local library, you'd get a bunch of librarians demonstrating outside.
Libraries are an ally on so many issues - free speech, right to access information, net neutrality, etc. - it's hard to argue that this stance is inconsistent with their other positions and general goals of educating the public.
I mean, I'm ok with the library blocking access to porn. Nobody should be able to jerk off in the library. I feel the same way about the KKK. I'm ok with their rights being filtered as an effort to block access to a type of thinking that advocates for violence against black people
You're ok with others rights being "filtered"? That's nothing more than a euphemism for the word denied. What you essentially said is that "I'm ok with other peoples rights being denied as long I disagree with them."
What happened to all men are created equal? Personally I don't agree with anything hate groups have to say, but that doesn't mean they should be denied the right to say it.
No, I think that's exactly what it means. If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs. I'd be no more willing to grant the KKK a platform that I would be to grant ISIS a platform
"If you adopt the ideologies of violence and hatred, I absolutely believe you should be denied the ability to express those beliefs." I know you won't admit it, but you just proved to me that you are using euphemisms to make your point.
If its a private business then you have the right to choose who you provide a platform to. However if you are the government than you have no business deciding who gets a platform and who doesn't. This article was focusing on a public library. These are government funded institutions and are bound by the 1st amendment. It would be illegal and discriminatory to do anything but what they are currently doing. As another user said if they chose to deny these people access to the meeting rooms then there is no way it could hold up in court.
Well for one, the 1st amendment specifically doesn't cover speech that incites violence or threatens others. If any of this speech turns violent, then they're to be kicked out, period.
However, even if it's "only" open racism, you're failing to consider the effects on everyone else. For example, I think the porn example above was a good point; imagine if you have a group of people that regularly use the library for group masturbation, or to be more specific to the use case, bring and browse porn magazines. Who has a greater right to use the library? The children who use a library to study and learn, or the people who want to read porn magazines? If we tolerate open expressions of racism or homophobia in libraries, that's going to drive away people who are the targets of that speech, and they have just as much a right to use the library as anyone else. Your ticket gives you the right to ride on a seat in the bus; it does not give you the right to threaten the other passengers.
You are right about the threatening part of the first amendment. That is absolutely not covered. But my problem comes with this sentence:
"However, even if it's "only" open racism, you're failing to consider the effects on everyone else."
This is a terrible thing to base criteria for free speech on because you have to be wiling to offend the people around you if you disagree with them. The civil rights movement is a prime example of that.
Your porn example is also invalid because masturbating in public is considered a lewd act and is illegal. Masturbating is not speech. Viewing porn in a public library can also be illegal if the following criteria are met:
"the average person, applying contempora"members on one's community deem it to be lewd and of the prurient interestry community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest ... (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
This was a supreme court decision ruled on in 1973. Look up the Miller test. Given this criteria, I absolutely believe viewing porn in a public library would be illegal and would not be a free speech issue.
But either way you're asking someone to leave for library for what they're saying / consuming to other people. If a group of people are loudly saying explicitly sexual things that children can hear, why is that grounds to be removed from the library, but loudly expressing racial supremacist remarks isn't...? Both make the library very uncomfortable for other groups of patrons, and children / patrons of other races are more valuable to a library then a group of perverts or racists, is what I'm saying. Your rights stop when you start infringing on other people's...
...If I understand this right, you believe that civil rights activists are on the same level as neo-nazis in terms of how offensive their beliefs are...?
Nobody is required to stay in that library and listen to racists speak. If this went to court than I'm sure the ruling would be compromising between both parties or in favor of the racists. You cannot outright deny a platform for speech in a public library as long as they are not actively threatening people. Period.
Not at all. I'm just trying to show you how these hate speech policies can be abused. The civil rights movement certainly offended a lot of racist people, but they weren't able to stop it due to the fact that they didn't want to hear what MLK, Marcus Garvey, and Malcom X wanted to say.
...Then does that mean you're also against libraries banning speech that's too loud, because it's protected speech? Are you against the library banning bullying (not physically, but instead emotionally, threatening) speech, because it's protected? Are you against the library banning sexually explicit discussion in the children's section, because it's protected speech?
These are all real life examples where speech is indeed restricted. And I have to ask, if you believe in all of these examples, why do you hold such an absolutist stance? Can you cite an example of a positive result that would be prevented by any of these above rules, but wouldn't be by a rule that "any speech that isn't directly threatening is allowed"?
I find all of these appalling, and directly against the purpose of the library being accessible to everyone. This is just me personally, but if this is a choice between free speech and use of a public building, then increasingly maybe free speech isn't as important as I thought it was...
None of those are protected by US law, you can get kicked out of the library for doing these things. I'm unsure about sexually explicit discussion though.
Some might say that this is a slippery slope fallacy, but I believe that legislating this type of thing opens the door to abuse of power. I don't agree with any of the practices you outlined above, but that does not give me or the government the right to ban them from being said.
Ouch. I honestly don't know what to say to that one.
But there is a limit to freedom of speech. It's not consequence free, and speech that actually incites violence isn't protected. I believe that the KKK's hate rhetoric is one of those types of unprotected speech. You can't censor these people entirely. It's not possible. But we can and should be trying to restrict their ability to spread their messages. I fully believe that. There is no function of their group other than to promote violence against large groups of other people, particularly American people. The government should not protect that. The first amendment does not extend to this mindset
Free speech absolutely applies to the KKK. The government protects them under the first amendment. The only thing the first amendment does not protect are threats and harassment and they know this so they say things like "the white race is superior" instead of "we are going to murder all black people". If the KKK were to start stalking and verbally harrasing minorities than abosultly that would be illegal. But stating their views is not illegal and never will be. There is a fine line.
That is why you never see the police intervening in KKK rallies. The right to peacefully assemble is also protected by the first amendment as well.
I believe that their very existence is an incitement of violence and although I understand that you're saying that they are currently protected, but I'm saying they shouldn't be. That's that. Because we know that it's not just about the lie about white people being superior. Their known goal is the extermination of non whites
I think it's not a terribly long walk from that to filtering "fake news" that isn't Fox/Breitbart.
But it's still a walk, and walks are good for taking a look around you.