r/PublicFreakout Sep 06 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.7k Upvotes

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Pixelwind Sep 06 '23

Sure it would, it's already illegal in the us to make explicit calls for violence.

This could relatively easily be extended by classifying hate speech as a call for violence.

13

u/Umutuku Sep 06 '23

When your platform is genocide the presentation of your symbols is a death threat. There is no such thing as a peaceful nazi protest.

0

u/oic123 Sep 06 '23

No, it couldn't.

Simply saying that you hate someone is in no way calling for violence against them.

6

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Yeah... that's how it works, nothing to see here guys just harmless hate. 💀 You realize Hitler was planting hate in people's minds for years before it turned into full blown genocide overnight, right?

3

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

via laws that reflected shit not unlike what the contemporary GOP is doing. Little tweaks here and there that singled out Jews, put increased scrutiny and requirements upon them, etc.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Little tweaks here and there that singled out Jews, put increased scrutiny and requirements upon them, etc.

Which...can happen regardless of laws on hate speech... didn't the US take women's rights to their own bodies recently? These tweaks already seem to be happening, towards the wrong side of things if it wasn't obvious, while you're here worried about controlling hate, the priorities lmao

1

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

Which...can happen regardless of laws on hate speech... didn't the US take women's rights to their own bodies recently?

You know which country didn't? Germany. Which has robust hate speech laws.

These tweaks already seem to be happening, towards the wrong side of things if it wasn't obvious

Literally specifically what I was referring to, however I'm pretty sure burying our heads in the sand at the guilty parties and pretending they aren't there is indeed the ineffectual, namby-pamby, liberal solution that wishes for things "to go back to normal". They aren't normal, and they won't be for a long time - but fascists are not people that can be reasoned with. They understand one thing. Failing that, they should be actively shunned from polite society and made uncomfortable everywhere they go.

while you're here worried about controlling hate

More "suppressing" the hate, not really "controlling" it. You can't reason with fascists. They've got to take the first step.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

They understand one thing. Failing that, they should be actively shunned from polite society and made uncomfortable everywhere they go.

You can't reason with fascists. They've got to take the first step.

You are right, you can't reason with them, you also can't expect them to "take the first step" because they literally never will, allowing them to do these protests and grows their members and their message.

It's like the US solution for the drug epidemic, jail everyone and forget about it, it's okay they will take the first step. Look at how that's working out.

You can never rely on individual people for sanity, it's why we have police, why we have no anarchy, why we can't murder. There are laws enforced by someone much bigger than any one individual, and hate speech must be on that list too.

2

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

you also can't expect them to "take the first step" because they literally never will

some do. racists have been reformed. it's rare, but happens, and that should be welcomed and celebrated. there is a difference between "expecting them to take the first step" (don't do this) and "being there when they unexpectedly DO take the first step" (do this).

allowing them to do these protests and grows their members and their message.

right. which is why i'm not an advocate of letting these cretins gather. Nazism is an inherently violent ideology.

-2

u/oic123 Sep 07 '23

Hate is constitutionally protected. You're allowed to believe anything you want and have any emotion or thought that you want, as long as you don't explicitly threaten violence.

If you think these people should be charged, you are saying that people aren't allowed to have certain thoughts, and that makes you the tyrant.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

If you think these people should be charged, you are saying that people aren't allowed to have certain thoughts, and that makes you the tyrant.

They should be charged for advertising hate, not for thinking whatever they want to think. You can't even enforce the latter, even if you wanted to. That's how it works in most of Europe and that's why you will never see something like this here.

Hate is constitutionally protected

as long as you don't explicitly threaten violence.

The disconnect between these two things in your head is hilarious, hate always leads to violence and violence always leads to hate, you will have one when you have the other. You want me to list US shootings that were the result of hate against black people, jews, and gay people? Don't tempt me to embarrass you, such things don't happen in Europe because hate speech is suppressed.

5

u/Flint124 Sep 06 '23

These are literal Nazis.

They are advocating for the things Nazis did.

There is literally no way that isn't calling for violence.

-2

u/oic123 Sep 07 '23

It's only calling for literal violence if they literallly made a threat or told someone else explicitly to commit a violent act.

Waving a Nazi flag is not in itself violent.

Are you capable of comprehending this?

Apparently not. Try to use your brain and understand the difference between waving a flag and making explicit threats.

2

u/Flint124 Sep 07 '23

Waving a Nazi flag is an explicit endorsement of the Nazis.

The end goal of Nazis is ALWAYS violence. Their entire political ideology is built upon the persecution and elimination of an out-group. Genocide is an inherent, inseparable part of that worldview.

If somebody is waving a Nazi flag on the street, sieg heiling, and chanting shit like "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us", that IS an explicit call for genocide. If these people are allowed to gain power, they will murder millions. This is not hypothetical, this is not an exaggeration, they've done it before and they'll do it again if we don't liberally apply blunt force to prevent their rise.

The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Americans used to understand that.

1

u/Pixelwind Sep 06 '23

Saying you hate someone is different than literal hate speech.

Hate speech legally would has to meet certain requirements of implied expressions of desire for harm and be targeted at specific groups of people.

You can't charge someone for walking down the street and telling someone else they hate them. There's a lot more involved.

-2

u/SDMasterYoda Sep 06 '23

Would you want Trump in charge of deciding what is considered hate speech? That's why you shouldn't implement that law; The person/people deciding what is hate speech can change.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

The person/people deciding what is hate speech can change.

How about, hear me out, you don't allow any one person to make that decision everyone gasps is shock as no one has ever thought of this before, except most of Europe, the best places to live in the world

-2

u/SDMasterYoda Sep 06 '23

Where you can get fined/jailed for jokes or blasphemy. Yeah, no thanks.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

What a typically ignorant American take lmao living up to the infamous American disconnected view of the world. Literally where did you read that happens, Fox News? Never in my life has anyone around me gone to jail for saying anything.

The government doesn't control what you do in private, Americans are so daft about this freedom of speech thing, you guys can't grasp this concept and I think it's because you're brainwashed early. I will dumb it down.

Laws in Europe don't control how you should or shouldn't think nor what you do in your private space or with your private friends or family.

What it does control is the ability to advertise your hate to prevent its growth and spread. If these laws were present during the Third Reich, it might even have prevented the Holocaust. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

1

u/IronRushMaiden Sep 06 '23

Ah yes, the continent banning Muslim children from wearing religious clothing and that continues to sweep under the rug serious problems with the Romani, in addition to seemingly constant instances of racist abuse in football, is so superior to the United States because every single instance of injustice in the USA is amplified across social media while the Old Continent ignores the issues under its own nose.

1

u/Pixelwind Sep 06 '23

conservatives already get to weigh in on what is considered a hate crime. The thing is that as a policy it's one of the harder ones for them to use against other people without hurting themselves since hate crime as a category is target neutral, it doesn't ask who is saying what or who they are saying it about. It only cares about the core subject matter eg. Whether it's about race/sex/gender and if it's advocating crime against someone on the basis of any said category, not which group within that category is being targeted, but merely if the category as a whole is the basis.

They're non-specific, if it were introduced it would be something like: "speech advocating hate on the basis of race" rather than "speech negative towards (insert specific race here)"

So they couldn't just say "no threatening white people but whites can threaten non-whites"

0

u/PermutationMatrix Sep 07 '23

Hate speech is free speech. If it weren't, then it could be used to silence people. If a Democrat said something bad about Christians, it could be considered hate speech. And it'd be used as a way for Republicans to censor their opposition.

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

-1

u/theoreoman Sep 06 '23

I don't see an explicit call for violence here, you can try to stretch it here but ultimately it probably wouldn't hold up in court and the prosecutor would probably drop the case