"California, here we come," used to be a positive expression. Now, it means something far worse for Americans in other states, after passage of two soft-on-crime propositions.
The fundamental function of our government is to ensure the safety of its citizens – those in the Oval Office and Sacramento are fundamentally failing to uphold that sacred duty.
Conservatives have consistently argued against this. The entire small government movement, with Libertarians at its helm and having taken over the Republican party, ideologically limits the government’s coercive power to protection of property rights only, not citizens. The uncritical belief in the right of property and gun ownership necessarily leads to the protection of the citizens, according to conservative ideology, regardless of the real facts.
And it’s contradictory to argue the government must ensure the safety of its citizens while supporting gun proliferation and opposing hate speech laws, both for which the Republican party is renowned. Easy access to guns makes people less safe to themselves, as they’re more likely to kill themselves than use it otherwise. And not understanding what hate speech is, and thus being inherently willing to oppose it from a position of ignorance, lets hateful speech abound as much as guns. And it’s unsurprising when the two mix to catastrophic results.
The fundamental function of our government is to ensure the safety of its citizens
The Canadian government issued a lot of lockdowns during covid. The people who argued against these lockdowns were conservatives. The government was able to keep the lookdowns in place because the Canadian constitution actually does state the government must protect the health and safety of citizens. The government argued that removing the lockdown would go against the constitution. Also, interesting note, the rights of Canadians are ranked. Health and safety is above freedom of assembly, which made the government’s argument even stronger. Conservatives definitely don’t want the government to be legally compelled to protect the health of citizens. It would result in a whole bunch of rules and regulations they wouldn’t like.
The argument being made in the article isn’t genuine. They only want health and safety to be considered a priority in this one instance and nowhere else, because it helps them in this argument, but not in others.
That problem with that approach is its basically your subjective definition of what’s obscene or hateful. I mean, that’s fine usually. When it comes to laws, though, that affect not just you, it’s important to have a definition of it, or to clearly characterize its elements so that one can argue what hate speech is.
Naturally, our country doesn’t have a legal definition of it, so, hate speech doesn’t exist legally.
Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated section 6 (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law in a manner suited to causing a disturbance of the public peace incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeded five years or a fine.
This one sounds like something fearful capitalists would implement for Communism lol.
Have you seen me struggle to figure out how to define rule 1?
Civility and related stuff is actually really hard to define. “I know it when I hear it” is valid enough.
And yes, Germany does not have freedom of speech. America does. That’s why America doesn’t have hate speech laws.
Remember, the government defines “hate speech”, it’s whatever the government doesn’t like. It’s not what you think hate speech is.
I mean, look at the UK and how they abuse hate speech laws, it’s a great example of how the idea of free speech and idea of outlawing hate speech are incompatible.
And McCarthy was about those with security clearance. Allegiance to hostile nations is still something that’s looked for.
How do you define it? Germany has laws around their socialist past. Should America have laws against socialism and democrats since that is where the Nazis got their ideas?
There is a fundamental (and probably intentionally) failure of history here.
Germany was never socialist, nor were the nazis. Just as North Korea is technicallt callee the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” while not being a republic or democratic, the nazis weren’t socialists because they have the word socialism in their official name. Official names can, and in this case are bullshit. There was a socialist movement in Germany, but the nazis co-opted and destroyed socialism. Many of the political prisoners in the holocaust were communists and socialists, taken away because they were communist or socialist.
Should America have laws against socialism and democrats since that is where the Nazis got their ideas?
The nazis didn’t get any ideas for socialism. They destroyed the socialist movement, as it was antithetical to their goals.
But they did learn from the U.S., and how the conservatives in Texas treated immigrants. At the time, they would only allow people of color through if they went through harsh chemical cleaning treatments under the guise of getting rid of lice. The nazis took that idea and ran with it. And nowadays the U.S. treatment of immigrants is not much better thanks to conservatives.
I think I’d define it as inciting hate with the aim of persuading people to actions harmful or offensive to the target group…or something like that.
Should America have laws against socialism?
You know what? I wish America would try that. It’ll either result in us becoming aware of socialism actually is and/or it’ll attempt outlaw everything good under the sun like advocating for minimum wage laws, UBI, harm reduction policies, etc, such that it’ll be opposed by almost everybody that isn’t a soulless ghoul.
Conservatives have consistently argued against this. The entire small government movement, with Libertarians at its helm and having taken over the Republican party, ideologically limits the government’s coercive power to protection of property rights only, not citizens. The uncritical belief in the right of property and gun ownership necessarily leads to the protection of the citizens, according to conservative ideology, regardless of the real facts.
And it’s contradictory to argue the government must ensure the safety of its citizens while supporting gun proliferation and opposing hate speech laws, both for which the Republican party is renowned. Easy access to guns makes people less safe to themselves, as they’re more likely to kill themselves than use it otherwise. And not understanding what hate speech is, and thus being inherently willing to oppose it from a position of ignorance, lets hateful speech abound as much as guns. And it’s unsurprising when the two mix to catastrophic results.
The Canadian government issued a lot of lockdowns during covid. The people who argued against these lockdowns were conservatives. The government was able to keep the lookdowns in place because the Canadian constitution actually does state the government must protect the health and safety of citizens. The government argued that removing the lockdown would go against the constitution. Also, interesting note, the rights of Canadians are ranked. Health and safety is above freedom of assembly, which made the government’s argument even stronger. Conservatives definitely don’t want the government to be legally compelled to protect the health of citizens. It would result in a whole bunch of rules and regulations they wouldn’t like.
The argument being made in the article isn’t genuine. They only want health and safety to be considered a priority in this one instance and nowhere else, because it helps them in this argument, but not in others.
You mean ignoring the 1st amendment ?
We can get to that, but first we need to start at the beginning: What is hate speech? Would you know it if you heard it?
Why would we need to start with a definition if we don’t agree the government needs to be making laws about it?
I don’t believe in the term as you are using it. The freedom of speech is paramount to a free nation.
We already have laws against speech that compels violence but otherwise people should be free to say what they want.
What is hate speech to you, then?
Just like obscenity. You know it when you hear it.
That problem with that approach is its basically your subjective definition of what’s obscene or hateful. I mean, that’s fine usually. When it comes to laws, though, that affect not just you, it’s important to have a definition of it, or to clearly characterize its elements so that one can argue what hate speech is.
Naturally, our country doesn’t have a legal definition of it, so, hate speech doesn’t exist legally.
In contrast, Germany, with its unique history, does have hate speech laws: Section 130 of the German Criminal Code prohibits “Incitement of Masses” (Firefox translated this for me… )
This one sounds like something fearful capitalists would implement for Communism lol.
Have you seen me struggle to figure out how to define rule 1?
Civility and related stuff is actually really hard to define. “I know it when I hear it” is valid enough.
And yes, Germany does not have freedom of speech. America does. That’s why America doesn’t have hate speech laws.
Remember, the government defines “hate speech”, it’s whatever the government doesn’t like. It’s not what you think hate speech is.
I mean, look at the UK and how they abuse hate speech laws, it’s a great example of how the idea of free speech and idea of outlawing hate speech are incompatible.
And McCarthy was about those with security clearance. Allegiance to hostile nations is still something that’s looked for.
And that’s the problem. We are founded on civil disagreement.
How do you define it? Germany has laws around their socialist past. Should America have laws against socialism and democrats since that is where the Nazis got their ideas?
There is a fundamental (and probably intentionally) failure of history here.
Germany was never socialist, nor were the nazis. Just as North Korea is technicallt callee the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” while not being a republic or democratic, the nazis weren’t socialists because they have the word socialism in their official name. Official names can, and in this case are bullshit. There was a socialist movement in Germany, but the nazis co-opted and destroyed socialism. Many of the political prisoners in the holocaust were communists and socialists, taken away because they were communist or socialist.
The nazis didn’t get any ideas for socialism. They destroyed the socialist movement, as it was antithetical to their goals.
But they did learn from the U.S., and how the conservatives in Texas treated immigrants. At the time, they would only allow people of color through if they went through harsh chemical cleaning treatments under the guise of getting rid of lice. The nazis took that idea and ran with it. And nowadays the U.S. treatment of immigrants is not much better thanks to conservatives.
I think I’d define it as inciting hate with the aim of persuading people to actions harmful or offensive to the target group…or something like that.
You know what? I wish America would try that. It’ll either result in us becoming aware of socialism actually is and/or it’ll attempt outlaw everything good under the sun like advocating for minimum wage laws, UBI, harm reduction policies, etc, such that it’ll be opposed by almost everybody that isn’t a soulless ghoul.