It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: New laws that make it illegal for hate groups to exist maybe?
avatar
Cambrey: Concerning racism in general, laws are useless and essential at the same time. You fight racism by changing mentality. Which is a long and very difficult task. Establishing laws is the easiest way, and I think you usually get immediate results, but laws will "only" prevent people from spreading racism out loud.
Basically, they're like a painkiller. They just mask the problem, they don't heal it. In fact, considering that people tend to rebel under pressure, stricter anti-racism laws have the potential to make the problem even worse. What's the first thing that you do when you want to attack a group of people? You make them into the oppressors, and yourself into the victim (And in fulfillment of Godwin's law, I will use Nazi Germany as the perfect example). The last thing we need is for the KKK to have a reason to start feeling sorry for themselves.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: I'm speaking in a purely legal sense...please don't take this to mean that I'm supporting or advocating the KKK.

But as far as I know (and I'm really not a legal expert), they're protected under freedom of speech up until they actually do something illegal. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd want it any other way. It's too easy to push that sort of thing too far. At first, maybe exceptions are being made for terrorists or hate groups...but once a leading power gets the freedom to adjust its core laws as it wishes, there's no telling what sort of crap might happen. It's a realy shame, but that's part of the price of freedom of speech. You have to take the bathwater with the baby.
No, any utterances or writings that are deemed a breach of the peace are excluded explicitly from the First Amendment by way of precedent (said precedent being, I believe, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - I could be wrong though, as my field of expertise is German law, not US law). Therefore, if any manner of expression serves to bring about a breach of the peace (e.g. by inciting or provoking someone to commit a felony or misdemeanor, cause panic etc.), it is explicitly not covered by the First Amendment.

The key here is the issue of "prior restraint" - the outright forbidding of making a statement regardless of its consequences. We have plenty of examples of prior restraint in German law (German gamers will be familiar with one of the most famous and notorious examples: Article 131b of the German Criminal Code, forbidding any publications that glorify violence), although for the most part it has worked out pretty well for us.

I personally think that the First Amendment has outlived its purpose and needs to be replaced with a more relevant law. These days it's used for nothing more than as something for cowards to hide behind when they don't wish to be held to account for their actions. Just because the First Amendment prevents prior restraint does not exempt one from the consequences of one's actions.

I do agree that restricting freedom of speech can be the start of a slippery slope though. I think the German constitution gets it completely fucking wrong in the other direction. I quote Article 5:

(1) Every person has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinion in oral, written or pictorial form and to educate themselves without hindrance from generally accessible sources. The freedom of the press and the freedom to report by means of broadcast media and film are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

So far, so good, right? At least it is until we get to number 2...

(2) These rights shall be restricted by the provisions laid out in general statutes, the statutory provisions intended to protect young people and in the laws protecting the rights of the person.

Just as an explanation: "Allgemeine Gesetze" (general statutes) means the overarching laws that serve the general well-being of the people.

So basically we have a useless constitution that allows the government to enact any law restricting freedom of speech under the pretense that it serves the general public, the rights of the individual or in the interest of young people.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jamyskis
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: New laws that make it illegal for hate groups to exist maybe? I'm not trying to offer solutions, I'm just saying over reliance on the constitution is annoying. People put so much focus on the fact that they have the right to do something, but don't ever stop to think if they SHOULD do it.
So who decides "should"? Funny enough, the libertarians that you have spoken against here are those same people who advocate the personal responsibility of your "should".

Once the Constitution is amended to say hate groups can't exist, then it will quickly turn into everything being labeled as a hate group. OWS "hates" Wall Street". The Tea Party "hates" how the government spends a whole bunch o' money. The LGBT folks "hate" that they are being told how they can interact, from a legal standpoint, with other people. Christians "hate" that atheists want government to avoid playing favoritism with certain religious institutions.

The Constitution is a document to give the people rights, not take them away. Prohibition took away a right of the people, with disastrous results. And that was just drinking. Some people want to do the same thing to the LGBT folks, by changing the document to apply a religious definition of marriage to a civil matter - again, limiting the rights of the people. Apply that same action to speech and you've just turned America into... something that's no longer America.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
Cambrey: Concerning racism in general, laws are useless and essential at the same time. You fight racism by changing mentality. Which is a long and very difficult task. Establishing laws is the easiest way, and I think you usually get immediate results, but laws will "only" prevent people from spreading racism out loud.
avatar
jefequeso: Basically, they're like a painkiller. They just mask the problem, they don't heal it. In fact, considering that people tend to rebel under pressure, stricter anti-racism laws have the potential to make the problem even worse. What's the first thing that you do when you want to attack a group of people? You make them into the oppressors, and yourself into the victim (And in fulfillment of Godwin's law, I will use Nazi Germany as the perfect example). The last thing we need is for the KKK to have a reason to start feeling sorry for themselves.
Oh God that would be terrible. The KKK actually achieving legitimacy in some people's eyes? Maybe you're right, laws against hate groups would make the problem worse. I guess angry racist rednecks will always be angry racist rednecks, no matter what the law.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jamyskis:
Sorry...had to go get an ice pack after hitting my head on that wall of text :3

Very interesting and informative. I know little to nothing about US law, and even less about international law.

So thanks for educating me a little :3
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jefequeso
Posted February 06, 2012
Obviously there is a distinction between the right to be able to do something and doing that something being a good idea. One may have the right to do a great many things, those things could be very bad ideas. That said, one does have the right. For instance, the ACLU famously defended the right of Nazis to have a legally organized march (deliberately routed through a Jewish neighborhood to boot). Did they agree it was a good idea or with Nazi ideology? Of course not. But those considerations are considered secondary to the right. Because unfortunately one person's hateful ideology is another's dearly held beliefs and we've decided that the government doesn't have the right to legally adjudicate what beliefs and what level of offensive are legal. Culturally we can discourage it by organizing a legal counter-protest and other such things to show our disapproval.

I agree that *some* people also seem to think that "freedom of speech" gives them carte blanche to say anything without repercussions from anyone. It doesn't. It only protects one from legal action from the government. That's it. It doesn't guarantee one a job or the (legal) actions of your fellow citizens if one voices one's strident opinion. Someone calling their boss an asshole is protected speech. They can't go to jail for it. But they can be fired no problem. However, there are some things which are not protected but not criminal either. Verbal harassment is not protected, but the recourse is a civil suit and a restraining order, not jail.

I agree that the Constitution is a living document. It's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret it in cases that aren't covered or were never conceived at the time the particular amendment or ruling was written - even so-called strict constitutionalists cannot escape the fact that most modern scenarios don't fall neatly into the framework. When culture has changed drastically or a situation arises that is so completely new never mind doesn't fall neatly into the framework, we have an amendment system to add ... and retract previous parts of the document. It was designed to be flexible. On the other hand it was also designed to be hard to do. The process to create a new amendment is extremely laborious as is the approval process - one of several reasons why there hasn't been a new one in a fairly long time. Further for a court case to reach the Supreme Court for review can take years of arguing through the lower courts. The system was designed to be flexible, but only after extreme deliberation.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by crazy_dave
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: I'm speaking in a purely legal sense...please don't take this to mean that I'm supporting or advocating the KKK.

But as far as I know (and I'm really not a legal expert), they're protected under freedom of speech up until they actually do something illegal. And to be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd want it any other way. It's too easy to push that sort of thing too far. At first, maybe exceptions are being made for terrorists or hate groups...but once a leading power gets the freedom to adjust its core laws as it wishes, there's no telling what sort of crap might happen. It's a realy shame, but that's part of the price of freedom of speech. You have to take the bathwater with the baby.
avatar
jamyskis: No, any utterances or writings that are deemed a breach of the peace are excluded explicitly from the First Amendment by way of precedent (said precedent being, I believe, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - I could be wrong though, as my field of expertise is German law, not US law). Therefore, if any manner of expression serves to bring about a breach of the peace (e.g. by inciting or provoking someone to commit a felony or misdemeanor, cause panic etc.), it is explicitly not covered by the First Amendment.

The key here is the issue of "prior restraint" - the outright forbidding of making a statement regardless of its consequences. We have plenty of examples of prior restraint in German law (German gamers will be familiar with one of the most famous and notorious examples: Article 131b of the German Criminal Code, forbidding any publications that glorify violence), although for the most part it has worked out pretty well for us.

I personally think that the First Amendment has outlived its purpose and needs to be replaced with a more relevant law. These days it's used for nothing more than as something for cowards to hide behind when they don't wish to be held to account for their actions. Just because the First Amendment prevents prior restraint does not exempt one from the consequences of one's actions.

I do agree that restricting freedom of speech can be the start of a slippery slope though. I think the German constitution gets it completely fucking wrong in the other direction. I quote Article 5:

(1) Every person has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinion in oral, written or pictorial form and to educate themselves without hindrance from generally accessible sources. The freedom of the press and the freedom to report by means of broadcast media and film are guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

So far, so good, right? At least it is until we get to number 2...

(2) These rights shall be restricted by the provisions laid out in general statutes, the statutory provisions intended to protect young people and in the laws protecting the rights of the person.

Just as an explanation: "Allgemeine Gesetze" (general statutes) means the overarching laws that serve the general well-being of the people.

So basically we have a useless constitution that allows the government to enact any law restricting freedom of speech under the pretense that it serves the general public, the rights of the individual or in the interest of young people.
That's odd that your constitution calls out one specific age group. Are young people considered extra important in German culture? I don't know anything about German law either.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
HereForTheBeer: Once the Constitution is amended to say hate groups can't exist, then it will quickly turn into everything being labeled as a hate group. OWS "hates" Wall Street". The Tea Party "hates" how the government spends a whole bunch o' money. The LGBT folks "hate" that they are being told how they can interact, from a legal standpoint, with other people. Christians "hate" that atheists want government to avoid playing favoritism with certain religious institutions.
This is exactly the problem. For myself, I'd be more concerned about religion coming under attack from over compensatory backlash, but it's just as easy to imagine any other group being oppressed if the right people got into power.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: That's odd that your constitution calls out one specific age group. Are young people considered extra important in German culture? I don't know anything about German law either.
They are. In fact, we have an entire set of laws called the Jugendschutzgesetz - literally, the Law to Protect Young People. It covers everything related to young people like the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, age-restricted media and so on. The German word "Jugend" basically means "minor" (actually "Jugendliche" does, but who's counting?) and refers to anyone under the age of 18.

Ironic for what is basically the world's most ephebiphobic race, don't you think?
Posted February 06, 2012
Oh, also...I think it would be FAAAR more likely for the whole of Christianity to be be deemed a "hate" group because of its "official" (not official at all) stance on gay marriage. In fact, that's one reason I'm a little concerned, because it's caused people to be so furious at ANYONE who is associated with religion.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jefequeso
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: That's odd that your constitution calls out one specific age group. Are young people considered extra important in German culture? I don't know anything about German law either.
avatar
jamyskis: They are. In fact, we have an entire set of laws called the Jugendschutzgesetz - literally, the Law to Protect Young People. It covers everything related to young people like the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, age-restricted media and so on. The German word "Jugend" basically means "minor" (actually "Jugendliche" does, but who's counting?) and refers to anyone under the age of 18.

Ironic for what is basically the world's most ephebiphobic race, don't you think?
That's pretty interesting. So are crimes against children treated even harsher there than they are here? Because here there are entire sections of the FBI devoted to stopping child molesters, rapists, and porn sites. Do you have special law enforcement dedicated specifically to the young people?
avatar
jefequeso: Oh, also...I think it would be FAAAR more likely for the whole of Christianity to be be deemed a "hate" group because of its "official" (not official at all) stance on gay marriage. In fact, that's one reason I'm a little concerned, because it's caused people to be so furious at ANYONE who is associated with religion.
I didn't think of that. Yes, our religion's "official" stances are often pretty bigoted.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/currentissue.asp
Post edited February 06, 2012 by TCMU2009
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jamyskis: They are. In fact, we have an entire set of laws called the Jugendschutzgesetz - literally, the Law to Protect Young People. It covers everything related to young people like the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, age-restricted media and so on. The German word "Jugend" basically means "minor" (actually "Jugendliche" does, but who's counting?) and refers to anyone under the age of 18.

Ironic for what is basically the world's most ephebiphobic race, don't you think?
avatar
TCMU2009: That's pretty interesting. So are crimes against children treated even harsher there than they are here? Because here there are entire sections of the FBI devoted to stopping child molesters, rapists, and porn sites. Do you have special law enforcement dedicated specifically to the young people?
avatar
jefequeso: Oh, also...I think it would be FAAAR more likely for the whole of Christianity to be be deemed a "hate" group because of its "official" (not official at all) stance on gay marriage. In fact, that's one reason I'm a little concerned, because it's caused people to be so furious at ANYONE who is associated with religion.
avatar
TCMU2009: I didn't think of that. Yes, our religion's "official" stances are often pretty bigoted.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/currentissue.asp
My old roommate, who is also about the best friend I've ever had, did a research paper on homosexuality back a few years ago, and he encountered a website that was called something like "godhatesfags.com." We still have the bruises from that facepalm.
On a more positive note, remember that guy who set up a confession booth at a LGBT festival...and confessed his sins against gays to the people who went in? That was awesome.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by jefequeso
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: That's pretty interesting. So are crimes against children treated even harsher there than they are here? Because here there are entire sections of the FBI devoted to stopping child molesters, rapists, and porn sites. Do you have special law enforcement dedicated specifically to the young people?


I didn't think of that. Yes, our religion's "official" stances are often pretty bigoted.
http://www.onemillionmoms.com/currentissue.asp
avatar
jefequeso: My old roommate, who is also about the best friend I've ever had, did a research paper on homosexuality back a few years ago, and he encountered a website that was called something like "godhatesfags.com." We still have the bruises from that facepalm.
Oh that must be westboro Baptist, the most hateful and terrifying people in the country. I can't even think about them without wanting to punch something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_baptist

It's just an extremely small church in Kansas, and it's been labeled an official hate group.

I've heard about that. Stories like that are truly inspiring. Donald Miller and his christian friends did something similar on Reed College's campus several years back.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by TCMU2009
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
TCMU2009: That's pretty interesting. So are crimes against children treated even harsher there than they are here? Because here there are entire sections of the FBI devoted to stopping child molesters, rapists, and porn sites. Do you have special law enforcement dedicated specifically to the young people?
I wasn't aware that the FBI headed up cases of child abuse. I always thought that the specific cases were established by any given state's Child Protective Services and, once the presence of a crime has been established, it is referred to police at a county level, which then takes necessary action against the perpetrator. The FBI's sole mandate is to investigate cases of federally organised child abuse such as porn rings.

If that's the case, then the German situation is pretty much identical. We have so-called "Jugendämter" here whose job it is to ensure that children are being cared for properly (although their remit is a little broader than US-CPS), and these Jugendämter will refer any cases of abuse to the local police department. We also have the Bundeskriminalamt - basically our own version of the FBI - which also investigates porn rings and child abuse gangs.
Posted February 06, 2012
avatar
jefequeso: Oh, also...I think it would be FAAAR more likely for the whole of Christianity to be be deemed a "hate" group because of its "official" (not official at all) stance on gay marriage. In fact, that's one reason I'm a little concerned, because it's caused people to be so furious at ANYONE who is associated with religion.
Yeah it's not "official" at all, really. Each individual denomination (or each individual church) usually has its own stance on various issues. As an example, the Episcopal church supports gay marriage. Other churches don't really care one way or another. And some think it's an abomination. "Christian" beliefs are actually quite diverse... which is why it's usually a bad idea to generalize about them at all.

avatar
jamyskis: I wasn't aware that the FBI headed up cases of child abuse. I always thought that the specific cases were established by any given state's Child Protective Services and, once the presence of a crime has been established, it is referred to police at a county level, which then takes necessary action against the perpetrator. The FBI's sole mandate is to investigate cases of federally organised child abuse such as porn rings.
Yep. FBI just does child pornography. All actual child abuse cases are handled locally. In my city, for example, CPS does a terrible job, but in the nearby counties, they do a great job. There have been several cases of abused or neglected kids being basically left alone by the city, but who were placed into foster care within weeks of moving to one of the counties. Even internet predators are usually caught on a local level. A few years ago the local police attempted to bust a guy for trying to set up a sexual meeting with a minor... only it turned out he was a diplomat from Saudi Arabia, and he cited diplomatic immunity and immediately fled the country.
Post edited February 06, 2012 by bevinator
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)This makes me so angry.(169 posts)(169 posts)
(169 posts)