The Enemy Combatant’s Hate Speech

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | The Enemy Combatant’s Hate Speech

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #428481
      Mindwalker
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 305

      I was watching Breaking Points, specifically the part about the ACLU and defending the KKK’s right to march.  That got me into an argument with someone who claimed that the KKK was engaging in hate speech which should not be protected.

      Remember the war on terror?  People were designated as “enemy combatants,” and as such they weren’t subject to Geneva conventions, Habeas Corpus, or other laws governing the treatment of prisoners.  By giving them a name, the government could deny the rights of those people, lock them up indefinitely, torture them in the same ways that people were executed for doing after WWII.

      Logically, calling something hate speech is logically identical to the above case.  It’s giving a specific name to a class of speech, as opposed to a class of people, but for the purpose of denying them rights that they would otherwise have.  With a simple renaming, people are no longer people.

      Does this work?  Renaming people as enemy combatants didn’t help the US catch terrorists and in fact probably resulted in creating more actual terrorists.  What does calling something Hate Speech (would it be snarky to add “TM”?) do?  That speech is no longer allowed in “polite” society, but does it go away?  I think the answer is fairly obvious: it goes underground, into hiding, where it’s concentrated and distilled into a more potent version.  Arguably, the Trump presidency is a direct result of banning such concepts and the language that goes with them.  Backlash against political correctness and, to some extent, empathy for other people could also be a direct result.

      What’s better?  As Krystal and Saagar say, argue the case that not being racist, sexist, against gays, or whatever artificial division people are inclined to have hurts us all.  The world has a lot of problems.  People will come up with solutions to those problems, so why limit the pool to not include huge chunks of people?

      Supporting a principle means supporting it when it’s uncomfortable to do so.  If you don’t support rights for terrorists, you don’t support rights.  If you don’t support free speech for people you disagree with, you don’t support free speech.

      </preach>

       

    • #428488
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 12,893
    • #428504
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,029

      And who knows – some day JPR may be labeled as dissidents or domestic terrorists.  We are already on a list of suspected Russian sites – because we all do not join in with  Democratic Party fluffers.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

    • #428512
      soryang
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,252

      The term was “unlawful enemy combatants.” Enemy combatants are covered under the Geneva Conventions and treated as prisoners of war when captured in an armed conflict. The US government claims that “unlawful enemy combatants” are not. My argument at the time was that there is no such thing as “unlawful enemy combatant” without a trial process which provides for basic minimum guarantees of due process. An “unlawful enemy combatant” is nothing more than a civilian detainee until determined by a trial of some sort to be engaged in otherwise criminal acts which are unaffiliated with a recognized and identifiable uniformed armed force. Civilian detainees are also protected by the Geneva Conventions unless the detaining power chooses to ignore them, as imo the US did, in the case of detainees in the so called war on terror.

    • #428514
      MizzGrizz
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,348

      ..even of opinions you don’t like or don’t agree with.People seem to have forgotten that.

    • #428516
      GZeusH
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,865

      If you go to Germany or Poland today, there are limits to what one can say, and with good reason.  Because nobody put limits on what some idiot could rant about 100 years ago, millions of people had their lives cut short, and they don’t want to run the risk of it happening again.

      Every time someone defends the absolute right of free speech, they need to be asked how they would prevent foreseeable consequences — and when.

      Corporate America consists of totalitarian entities laser-focused on short-term greed.

      • #428520
        MizzGrizz
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 3,348

        ..or Poland,@gzeush.

        Number two,you handle those issues on a case by case basis.If a bunch of idiots want to march,or post  crap on Twitter,or in general act like fools,no problem.

        If,However,their march turns violent,or some racist who has posted on Twitter that he hates blacks goes nuts in a crowd and starts shooting,then you take the appropriate legal actions.

        • #428526
          GZeusH
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 3,865

          I mean, it could never happen here, could it?

          When the country was founded, there was the opportunity to learn a lot, to create the best system possible by comparing how 13 societies functioned and selecting the policies that worked best for the whole country to adopt.   That isn’t how it turned out though, is it?  We can’t even learn from our own mistakes — look at the types of politicians we keep electing — so how could we possibly learn from the mistakes other countries have made?

          Corporate America consists of totalitarian entities laser-focused on short-term greed.

          • #428566
            MizzGrizz
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 3,348

            @gzuesh.The type of politicians presented to Americans now are the kind that a rigged system wants them to have,and they vote for them due to the amount of propaganda they get to brainwash them into voting for these goons.

            Scandinavia has a history with fascism also,and they didn’t see fit to limit free speech after the war.

      • #428529
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 20,613

        They took over Germany because of a crushing economic depression caused by capitalism was exacerbated by the onerous conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, which was because of the British and French desire for vengeance and reparations after World War I.

        Hateful ideologies like Nazism don’t take hold when times are good. Suppressing freedom of political speech only helps the ruling classes. Always has, always will. That’s the whole point.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

      • #428556
        Mindwalker
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 305

        See theater, fire, crowded.  Is it the right thing to do to limit Nazi-like speech in Germany?  Possibly but I kind of don’t think so, for the reasons above.  This country has a history with slavery and racism, so is it right to limit that speech?  Again I don’t think so since doing so ultimately makes it worse.

        What about black people saying white’s are big-ass bigots rigging the system in their (whites) favor?  That could be construed as hate speech, but I would defend it to the end!

        The labels “hate” in hate speech and “unlawful” in unlawful enemy combatant are purely ways to deny rights but cover that up as being somehow virtuous.

         

      • #428571
        game meat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,474

        That’s basically embracing elements of fascism on the pretense of stopping fascism, and it’s based on a clearly false premise: Like the Wiemar Republic, the US had a comparable level of free speech in the 1930s too and, while the list of things to criticize about America is a long one, we did not become Nazis. We even went as far as to let them have a rally at Madison Square Garden in 1939, and yet, their ideology did not catch on here.

        Beyond that, I’ll ask the same two questions I ask everyone who supports hate speech laws: Who gets to decide what is and isn’t hate speech? How do you prevent bad faith actors from twisting the definition of hate speech to suit their agenda and suppress opposing viewpoints? In the end, If you want to fine or jail people for saying something racist on twitter, you’ll probably have to accept that criticism of Israel is antisemitic hate speech. It’s unlikely that only people who agree with whatever your definition of hate speech is will always be the ones in charge of defining it.

        • #428573
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 20,613

          I’ll try to remember them.

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

        • #428625
          Mindwalker
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 305

          Limiting speech doesn’t stop or curtail the thing the limit was ostensibly to prevent.  And yeah, “Who gets to define Hate Speech” is really the core question.  It seems like basing a curtailing of rights on some nebulous idea is a really bad idea.  Maybe curtailing rights in the first place is a really bad idea.

           

      • #428594
        MistaP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,972
    • #428560
      rampart
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 586

      when the constitution was written many of these “free speech” issues would have been solved by the dueling code. since dueling no longer serves to keep everyone “politically correct,” i think some remedy against gate speech and other toxic 1st amendment aberrations needs to be found.

    • #428586
      GZeusH
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,865

      That’s why we have a Supreme Court.  If they were to say that advocating bring back slavery, or advocating “ethnic cleansing” was hate speech, that would be some useful guidance.   They did say rather recently that it was OK to say “I’m boycotting Israel.”

      I would rather see people having to defend their speech all the way up to the Supreme Court than bring back dueling, but that’s just me.

      Corporate America consists of totalitarian entities laser-focused on short-term greed.

      • #428597
        game meat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,474

        They did say rather recently that it was OK to say “I’m boycotting Israel.”

        One reason for that might be because we currently do have free speech, and we do not have hate speech limitations at this time. 🙂

        You don’t know how they would rule on the Israel issue if that norm were broken, and the definition of protected speech ends up becoming more malleable. A recent ruling under our present laws is irrelevant to what could happen in the event that we decide to erode first amendment protections. It’s apples and oranges.

        If they were to say that advocating bring back slavery, or advocating “ethnic cleansing” was hate speech, that would be some useful guidance.

        For some reason, people who argue in favor of censorship always seem to assume that the people in charge (the supreme court) of defining what is and is not “hate speech” will see things the same way they do, and I’m not sure why. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that. A culturally right wing court could easily work out an argument that supporting slavery is not hate speech, but that criticizing or boycotting Israel is hate speech.

        No one can ever answer how they would be able to prevent bad faith actors from twisting the definition of hate speech to suit their agenda and suppress opposing viewpoints.

        I’d rather people defend their speech in open debate rather than trust the political appointees of US oligarchs to tell me what I am allowed to say or hear. Hard pass.

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.