DS9 - Tribunal

[Freeverse]

The only thing I would add is that there have been plenty of times when someone is deplatformed due to protests being held against them speaking at a certain venue... but, this isn't the same thing as free speech being suppressed. It's actually just one group using their freedom of speech to convince the platform holder not to have these people speak on their platform. Essentially "HEY! don't give your microphone to that racist! They're probably going to use it to say some racist shit!"

I'll agree that using one's free speech in a non-threatening manner to convince people to remove one venue for speaking doesn't cross a line for me. Quite.

What about when threats of violence are used to deplatform? Is that free speech?

In a literal sense? Sure. Speech is speech. Legally speaking, here in America, threats are not protected speech. But neither is hate speech.

If threatening someone with violence is inherently violent... then so is bigotry, right? When someone spreads racist rhetoric, they don't have to explicitly say "let's kill brown people" for it to be threatening. A veiled threat is still a threat. So when someone is saying we should have a white ethno-state, they are implicitly threatening people of color with deportation, at the very least. And that's not to mention that letting people spread bigoted speech emboldens other bigots to violent action.

Though, I've tried to do some research on deplatforming to determine how often violent threats have been used to accomplish it and there may very well be some examples, but I haven't found any.

[Fianna]

The U.S. doesn't have any laws specifically against hate speech. And, generally speaking, advocating for violence through legal channels is not a crime.

Like, saying that people should form a lynch mob and murder a suspected criminal: that's inciting violence, thus illegal. Saying that the government should execute someone for their crimes: that's simply expressing an opinion on capital punishment, thus protected under free speech.

I mean, if advocating for the government to institute a large-scale campaign of violence against a certain group of people was illegal, no one would ever be able to argue in favor of going to war.

[Riedquat]

Wading in without reading most of the previous posts here...

Although the Cardassian system was portrayed as just an authoritarian nightmare there's also room for insights into alien thinking. The Cardassian system, as reprehensible as it is to all of us (I hope!) arguably makes perfect sense if you're dealing with a group who have very little concept of individuality. That could be a biological thing or a social one (and should that make a difference to how we regard it?) Few like to admit it but we're all happy to accept some degree of suppressing the individual to keep the society functional. It doesn't take too much of a leap of imagination to see a different society take that a bit further and end up with such a system, and not have a problem with it, even for many of those on the receiving end of its injustice, certainly if it never actually claims to be about justice (I don't remember if it did or not).

Sadly someone will probably interpret this as trying to defend the Cardassian system; anyone who does should have another listen to Chuck's closing commentary.

[Wolf359]

How lucky it was that the Cardassian judge instantly recognised Boone for what he really was and what he did to O’Brien without needing anything explaining to her, allowing the episode to end on time.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Wading in without reading most of the previous posts here...

Although the Cardassian system was portrayed as just an authoritarian nightmare there's also room for insights into alien thinking. The Cardassian system, as reprehensible as it is to all of us (I hope!) arguably makes perfect sense if you're dealing with a group who have very little concept of individuality. That could be a biological thing or a social one (and should that make a difference to how we regard it?) Few like to admit it but we're all happy to accept some degree of suppressing the individual to keep the society functional. It doesn't take too much of a leap of imagination to see a different society take that a bit further and end up with such a system, and not have a problem with it, even for many of those on the receiving end of its injustice, certainly if it never actually claims to be about justice (I don't remember if it did or not).

Sadly someone will probably interpret this as trying to defend the Cardassian system; anyone who does should have another listen to Chuck's closing commentary.

I think Voyager tackled this conditional system pretty well with the anti-violent-thought planet.

I think it fits rather generally into the "don't judge" category, though we do end up with situations where they are trying to scapegoat one of your own citizens. Next thing you know there's money missing off the dresser and your daughter's knocked up -- I've seen it a hundred times.

[Beastro]

Calling himself a "white nationalist" would be a bad PR move, since people have a lot of negative opinions about white nationalists. So he changes "nationalist" to "chauvinist" (which is defined as "an extreme and belligerent form of nationalism"), and changes "white" to "western" (two terms that have a strong association in this context, but are distinct enough to allow for deniability). Now, it's possible to be a chauvinist for western culture without being a white nationalist. But given that the Proud Boys founder's defense, when accused of being a white nationalist, was to claim that there's no such thing as white nationalists? Doesn't seem like he's arguing in good faith.

The dude's married to a Native American Indian and they have children. He's been mocked and derided by white nationalists for years over this and he does his usual quips in reply about it.

Now if you want to get into racism, that's another bag, but he comes off more as your average stand-up comedian that has a very dirty mouth and doesn't like to filter it as he gets his jollies being a provocateur.

[Darth Wedgius]

Pardon me, but if violence, intimidation, and property damage are being done under the name Antifa, then isn't the "don't believe what's in a name" point still valid?

As far as nazis go, I did not just mean the American Nazi Party. I meant all neo-Nazi groups. As far as those who argue for many of the same beliefs, that doesn't make them nazis. Socialists argue for many of the same beliefs as marxists, do they not?

As for the Proud Boys, yes, it's leader has openly identified himself as a "western chauvanist." But that's not white supremacy or racism. Unless you're one of those people who believe that race is culture?

1) My point was that anyone can label themselves as antifa (or be labeled antifa by others), so you're gonna get some people using the label who believe in violence or destruction of property, and others using the label who don't believe in those things, and neither can control how the others behave or stop them from using the label, because there is no organization or regulatory body.

2) You said that, going by Wikipedia, there were only 400 Nazis in the United States. According to Wikipedia, the American Nazi Party has 500 members, and they're one of the smaller Neo-Nazi organizations. And, of course, as with any ideology, many of those who believe in it aren't necessarily going to be card-carrying members of a like-minded organization.

3) To bring things back around to Chuck's video, that guy calling himself a "western chauvinist" is an example of "The Name Game". Calling himself a "white nationalist" would be a bad PR move, since people have a lot of negative opinions about white nationalists. So he changes "nationalist" to "chauvinist" (which is defined as "an extreme and belligerent form of nationalism"), and changes "white" to "western" (two terms that have a strong association in this context, but are distinct enough to allow for deniability). Now, it's possible to be a chauvinist for western culture without being a white nationalist. But given that the Proud Boys founder's defense, when accused of being a white nationalist, was to claim that there's no such thing as white nationalists? Doesn't seem like he's arguing in good faith.

(1) It's not just tactics, but goals. "No border! No wall! No USA at all!" doesn't seem anti-fascist. But I think we both agree with the one who started the conversation that "antifa" doesn't mean anti-fascist in use.

(2) Point taken. I think it's also fair to point out that judging other people to secretly be Nazis could be kind of tricky.

(3) Case in point. You're assuming a "dog whistle," I believe. However, the web site says their goals are the following:

Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

[Darth Wedgius]

The only thing I would add is that there have been plenty of times when someone is deplatformed due to protests being held against them speaking at a certain venue... but, this isn't the same thing as free speech being suppressed. It's actually just one group using their freedom of speech to convince the platform holder not to have these people speak on their platform. Essentially "HEY! don't give your microphone to that racist! They're probably going to use it to say some racist shit!"

I'll agree that using one's free speech in a non-threatening manner to convince people to remove one venue for speaking doesn't cross a line for me. Quite.

What about when threats of violence are used to deplatform? Is that free speech?

In a literal sense? Sure. Speech is speech. Legally speaking, here in America, threats are not protected speech. But neither is hate speech.

If threatening someone with violence is inherently violent... then so is bigotry, right? When someone spreads racist rhetoric, they don't have to explicitly say "let's kill brown people" for it to be threatening. A veiled threat is still a threat. So when someone is saying we should have a white ethno-state, they are implicitly threatening people of color with deportation, at the very least. And that's not to mention that letting people spread bigoted speech emboldens other bigots to violent action.

Though, I've tried to do some research on deplatforming to determine how often violent threats have been used to accomplish it and there may very well be some examples, but I haven't found any.

I'd say that neither threatening someone with violence nor bigotry are inherently violent. Not my favorite thing, but not violent. But Milo Yiannopoulos might be racist -- he made a joke about Leslie Jones that could be interpreted as racist, comparing her to a gorilla, though I've seen plenty of white men compared to gorillas as well. But AFAIK he's never advocated racist policies in any manner.

From WIkipedia:

n 1 February 2017, Yiannopoulos was scheduled to make a speech at UC Berkeley at 8:00 pm. More than 100 UC Berkeley faculty had signed a petition urging the university to cancel the event. Over 1,500 people gathered to protest against the event on the steps of Sproul Hall, with some violence occurring. According to the university, around 150 masked agitators came onto campus and interrupted the protest, setting fires, damaging property, throwing fireworks, attacking members of the crowd, and throwing rocks at the police. These violent protesters included members of BAMN, who threw rocks at police, shattered windows, threw Molotov cocktails, and later vandalised downtown Berkeley. Among those assaulted were a Syrian Muslim in a suit who was pepper sprayed and hit with a rod by a protester who said "You look like a Nazi", and a woman who was pepper sprayed while being interviewed by a TV reporter. Citing security concerns, the UC Police Department cancelled the event. One person was arrested for failure to disperse, and there was about $100,000 in damage. The police were criticised for their "hands off" policy whereby they did not arrest any of the demonstrators who committed assault, vandalism, or arson.

I don't see anything specifically labeling the protesters antifa, though.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Looks like a duck.

[Thebestoftherest]

Looks like a duck.

Walk like a duck.