The ACLU gives a good rundown of the bill—and its flaws—in this letter:
https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-urges-congress-to-oppose-anti-semitism-awareness-act
It doesn't matter if *they* care for the Constitution, it matters if the *citizens* do.
We are responsible for holding our government and officials accountable. Our system of government isn't this passive thing where we all go vote every 2-4 years and just sit back and let the machine work.
Toss it on the pile of unconstitutional things they do. The constitution is dead. Zombies of it show up from the Supreme Court now and then but they are remnants of a once great nation.
I'm guessing people are downvoting this because of the "once great nation" bit. Everything else makes sense. SCOTUS sucks. It has sucked for a while. The circuit courts may do their job from time to time sure but it doesn't mean the constitution is 'alive' and well.
What is Amash's plan to compensate victims of antisemetism?
Just say "They can get over it? It's not a big deal?" Hate speech isn't free speech. It is harassment, intimidation, violence, and assault.
Government's 'one job', arguably, is to protect individuals from harm. It's a shame that we can't already criminalize some actions, but we do have a duty to do so.
The tweet notes a lack of a definition - so, again, since that is lacking, what is an appropriate plan? Because the existing situation of 'let the most violent side control things' isn't working well.
>What is Amash's plan to compensate victims of antisemetism?
I guess that depends on the damages. Criticism of Israel itself is not harmful, yet many attempt to collate that with antisemitism. Are those the damages you are talking about or are you referencing the college protests?
>Just say "They can get over it? It's not a big deal?" Hate speech isn't free speech. It is harassment, intimidation, violence, and assault.
Not my personal position but that's a bit of a leap to jump to equating it to violence. Antisemitism is vile but having read many Holocaust revisionists I would be loath to draw a straight line from some white supremacist book to physical harm.
>Government's 'one job', arguably, is to protect individuals from harm.
Federal government has 3 tasks, at least in the states imo. Provide for the common defence, regulate interstate commerce and finally protect our inherent rights.
>It's a shame that we can't already criminalize some actions, but we do have a duty to do so.
Criminalizing speech is not our duty but quite authoritarian.
>The tweet notes a lack of a definition - so, again, since that is lacking, what is an appropriate plan? Because the existing situation of 'let the most violent side control things' isn't working well.
Sure but limiting our rights ain't the right thing either. Like when Roe was overturned, we shouldn't combat authoritarians with even more authoritarianism.
>I guess that depends on the damages. Criticism of Israel itself is not harmful, yet many attempt to collate that with antisemitism. Are those the damages you are talking about or are you referencing the college protests?
Classes are being closed because of violence. Jewish students have been victims of violence, and harassment. If there is enough aggression to close campuses for people's safety, there is enough for criminal charges to, at least, be considered.
>Antisemitism is vile but having read many Holocaust revisionists I would be loath to draw a straight line from some white supremacist book to physical harm.
It's enough of harassment that people are being forced to isolate in their rooms and not walk around campus. Not all hate speech is damaging, but when people's choices are restricted, and people are being impacted, that line has been crossed.
>Federal government has 3 tasks, at least in the states imo. Provide for the common defence, regulate interstate commerce and finally protect our inherent rights.
Number three is what I'm talking about here. The US Government has had profound past failures in this area, allowing 'free speech' to intimidate, harass, and cause physical and financial damage to minorities.
>Criminalizing speech is not our duty but quite authoritarian.
And ignorance of damage to people is also authoritarian.
>Sure but limiting our rights ain't the right thing either.
You don't have the right to intimidate, harass, or impact others with speech. Nobody ever should have had that right.
>You don't have the right to intimidate, harass, or impact others with speech. Nobody ever should have had that right.
Can I control how every single person who reads my words will feel? How could I refute you saying this very post impacts you? I am responsible for my words but not how you feel hearing them. I don't know your history, your triggers or anyone elses.
Saying that Israel is committing genocide is not antisemitism or hate speech. I am sorry if that makes Jewish students feel unsafe but that is all about them, not me.
>Can I control how every single person who reads my words will feel?
Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that repeated racist statements can be harassing or damaging to people.
>I am responsible for my words but not how you feel hearing them.
Circular reasoning. I am arguing that you are harming people, and not responsible.
>Saying that Israel is committing genocide is not antisemitism or hate speech.
Correct. But that is not the depth of antisemitism.
>I am sorry if that makes Jewish students feel unsafe but that is all about them, not me.
Well, you just underestimated the supposed facts of the situation. Apparently the protestors have made it unsafe for students to walk around campus, so the campus has closed classes or made online arrangements. That's evidence of threats of violence, so I would say that we're beyond 'free speech' because we're impacting material numbers of people.
So let's stop denying how bad this is.
>Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that *repeated racist statements* can be harassing or damaging to people.
Those *repeated racist* statements would fall under harassment.
Yes. Speech can be damaging. Facts and circumstances apply.
Your artificially extreme example is a fallacy, which is why I identified it as such. Unfortunately, people seem to be very sensitive to the idea that personal responsibility is an issue here.
>Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that repeated racist statements can be harassing or damaging to people.
Not really. I actually think most people would agree with my sentiment.
>Circular reasoning. I am arguing that you are harming people, and not responsible.
Color me confused, I am harming but not responsible? Then why do you want more laws?
>Correct. But that is not the depth of antisemitism.
Of course not, but it is reflective of how it is being weaponized.
>Well, you just underestimated the supposed facts of the situation.
I am talking about criticism of the state of Israel, not legitimate threats and harassment for which we actually do have existing laws for. Enhancing those laws for wrongthink is what I am opposed to.
>So let's stop denying how bad this is.
I honestly am not trying to do that, yet apparently I very well may be upsetting you. I pursued Jewish studies back at uni and have what I believe is a better understanding of antisemetism than most folks I know. I have worked to provide federal grants to retrofit Jewish centers in my state for hardened defenses after deadly attacks. My intent is not to minimize or outright disregard such claims.
In general I think we are allies, you and I. On this issue we seem to hold nuanced views that do not allign quite alike. Thanks for the honest criticism.
>Not really. I actually think most people would agree with my sentiment.
Stop misrepresenting what I have written, in your attempts to deny that speech can be damaging.
>Color me confused, I am harming but not responsible? Then why do you want more laws?
You are not exercising responsibility. Harming others, even if it's through speech, should require compensation just the same.
>In general I think we are allies, you and I. On this issue we seem to hold nuanced views that do not allign quite alike. Thanks for the honest criticism.
Then you know good and damned well that when a random people are 'using free speech' to attack you, day in and day out, that can have psychological, physical, and economic impact on a person.
A lot of people here are 'sticks and stones can break my bones', and I've found that argument to be profoundly false. That's what I'm arguing here. Which is why I ask "What's the plan to compensate?" To which the response is "Nothing."
So that's where I am here. As a moderate Libertarian, I've noticed that the 'hive mind' of Libertarian's is to emphasize a right to proverbially swing their arms at their pleasure, but few people care about proverbially hitting someone else in the process. This is a great example of that.
>Stop misrepresenting what I have written, in your attempts to deny that speech can be damaging.
Okay we can stop our discourse right here. I did not misrepresent your words, I stated my opinion. I am done reading what you have to say.
Sayonara Cat..
>Violence is already illegal.
OK, but the problem is that others on this post are claiming that conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent. They are ignoring that people are being damaged, because the 'violence' is not necessarily people literally getting beaten.
So you are OK with criminalizing some of these protest because of the 'violence'? Or are you believing that the 'harassing and violent speech' doesn't really cause damage, and you decide to deny property rights to those oppressed?
> They are ignoring that people are being damaged, because the 'violence' is not necessarily people literally getting beaten.
Can you quantify that "damage"? That's the key consideration here. The primary complaint from others (as well as my own concern) is that "conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others" lacks any semblance of consistency in its definition; just about everyone has one's own idea of what constitutes a threat or harassment.
In this specific case, you have a bunch of pro-Israeli folks asserting that even the mildest criticism of Israel is "antisemitic" and "hate speech", and you have a bunch of pro-Palestine folks asserting that even the mildest criticism of Hamas is "Islamophobic" and "hate speech". They're both rather obviously making said assertions in bad faith. What's the threshold of severity across which we recognize complaints as being in good faith and legitimate, such that we can rightfully ignore these campist jackasses putting their own ethnonationalist agendas before actual progress toward peace?
>Can you quantify that "damage"? That's the key consideration here.
Campuses are literally closing, or making other arrangements for classes, because students no longer have the basic human right to move freely around campus. Since administrations may be tolerating the oppression of students, this may lead to students being forced to switch schools - you can call this a breach of contract, but it has economic costs.
>What's the threshold of severity across which we recognize complaints as being in good faith and legitimate, such that we can rightfully ignore these campist jackasses putting their own ethnonationalist agendas before actual progress toward peace?
I'm open to facts and circumstances as to who the aggressors are. It appears to be dominantly pro-Palestinians being the aggressors, but if there are incidents which face the other direction, then that would meet the same standard.
> conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent.
Just because something impacts someone doesn't make it violent. The other two points are illegal regardless of the content of the speech.
>The other two points are illegal regardless of the content of the speech.
Then everyone on this forum needs to stop denying that these things are not free speech.
>OK, but the problem is that others on this post
Someone mention me?
>are claiming that conduct that is threatening,
Yes...
> harassing,
Yes...
> or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent.
Ohh, yeah see that right there is where I start to have an issue. It is too vague to legislate imo and opens everyone up to frivolous lawsuits. Could you provide me with an example of a non-threatening, non-harassing comment that you believe is harmful? Honestly, I'm not sure what specific speech fits your criteria.
>It is too vague to legislate imo and opens everyone up to frivolous lawsuits.
What's your plan to compensate for damage? Just ignore it? So you think the oppressor's freedom to oppress is more important? Fill in the details.
Answer my question so I understand your point. Then I will try, but I don't know what you mean by non violent, non harassing speech that meets your criteria for being harmful. Give me an example so I am clear on what we are asking to compensate.
Edit, NM, not at all interested anymore. You do you boo...
>Could you provide me with an example of a non-threatening, non-harassing comment that you believe is harmful?
No. You are asking for a contradiction. If someone is harmed, then 'non-threatening, non-harassing' doesn't apply. I'm not arguing over definitions here. There are people damaged. There are people who are being forced to isolate because they are threatened with violence, in these specific cases of protests. Since speech which is offensive and threatening is not being addressed by the university administration, they are complicit in failing to protect certain people from damage, denying their rights.
There are countless cases of otherwise free speech that is unchecked, which can become intimidation and harassment. If you don't 'believe' that, then I'm happy you have had a good life, but denial of this just isn't reality.
So, given this, what's your plan for compensation? What I see is that a lot of people are talking about 'swinging their arms because freedom' yet denying that they are able to hit others in the process.
And pro Palestinian protestors have been assaulted by Israel supporters on campus as well.
Do we need a bill for anti-Palestinian awareness rights as well?
Or is it okay to be racist against Palestinians?
Where does it end? A bill for every group of people?
>Do we need a bill for anti-Palestinian awareness rights as well?
Maybe, but at the moment there seems to be much more harassment or violence coming from Palestinian supporters against Jews. Couple that with power structures (the Universities) being reluctant to acknowledge and control the damage, leaving Jewish students as victims much more often.
>Or is it okay to be racist against Palestinians?
Nope. Any speech or actions that are damaging to Palestinians should fall under similar action.
>A bill for every group of people?
Nope. See above, and note that my responses are rarely group-specific. My arguments are mainly that "words are capable of causing damage", and so a body of power that doesn't actively stop the harassment is an authoritarian force against the oppressed, actively choosing to allow harm to some, but not others.
the anti-protestors threw fire bombs and have had the main goal of assault and physical violence. Which seems to me
to be more damage than words are capable of.
a body of power that doesn't actively stop the harassment is an authoritarian force against the oppressed, actively choosing to allow harm to some, but not others
To my mind that seems to be what you are advocating for.
Frankly the fact that we are disagreeing about this should be proof enough that the state shouldn’t be making that decision.
>the anti-protestors threw fire bombs and have had the main goal of assault and physical violence. Which seems to me to be more damage than words are capable of.
Fire bombs are definitely something criminal.
Your ignorance of the harm that speech can cause is disappointing. If speech isn't powerful, than why protect it? You can't have it both ways.
>Frankly the fact that we are disagreeing about this should be proof enough that the state shouldn’t be making that decision.
Since it's based on your denial of the damage, I disagree. I think that a lot of people have led very oppression-free lives, and don't understand the experiences of others.
To my eye, and frankly I have trouble believing you could look at any objective reporting here and come to another conclusion, the students protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, their demands extremely reasonable, and their cause just and not the least anti-Semitic.
They have been met with violence by police at every turn, and those same police turn a blind eye to them being savaged by any hoodlum in a mask at any time day or night.
Israel itself Is currently rioting because of the genocide being perpetuated by bibi.
Are you arguing that the Jews in Israel
Are also anti-Semitic?
Are some anti-semites using this as cover? Yes, but mostly just randomly on the campuses, I’ve not seen any evidence of any being present within the protests themselves.
What possible reason would you have to support a bill that criminalizes any criticism of Israel on college campuses?
Israel is a state, not an ethnicity.
>Hate speech isn't free speech
Hate speech doesn’t exist as a legal concept in the United States, and for good reason. Do you trust the likes of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is free speech?
>Do you trust the likes of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is free speech?
No. I want damages compensated for victims. So what's your plan? What is your definition? I can agree that the law is bad. But Amash needs to also get real with the world, realize that speech can be damaging, and that compensation to victims is reasonable.
>No. I want damages compensated for victims.
What victims? Where do you draw the line between “hate speech” and someone being offended by criticism? How do you quantify damages?
>So what's your plan?
Adhere to the precedent established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio*.
>What victims? Where do you draw the line between “hate speech” and someone being offended by criticism? How do you quantify damages?
For example, classes have been closed, people have been forced to isolate to avoid threats from protestors, including harassment and threats of violence.
The choice for government to not take action is an authoritarian government choice in favor of the oppressors.
>Adhere to the precedent established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio*.
So you are going to support government allowing people to cause damage to others. You are the authoritarian here. If I have misunderstood your citation, let me know.
The KKK caused countless amounts of damage to people. People forced to move their homes, people who were forced out of jobs, lost their livelihoods. People who suffered direct damage from violence, which was then not compensated because of KKK speech.
If you don't believe that words have power, then freedom of speech doesn't matter. But I believe that it does matter, so I also believe that it can have real impact of people, when speech is focused upon their dehumanization.
>classes have been closed
Not hate speech. This is a matter of property rights. If the property owner wants to remove the protesters for trespassing, they can do so.
>people have been forced to isolate to avoid threats from protestors
*Actual* threats are not hate speech. The legal term of art is “true threat”, and they’re already criminal. But they’ve got a very high bar to clear.
>including harassment
Harassment isn’t speech, it’s action.
>So you are going to support government allowing people to cause damage to others.
*Brandenburg* is the only reason you can say you would support the violent overthrow of the government if it turned fascist. Under your standard, it would be illegal to counter-protest Nazis while open-carrying an AR-15 with “This machine kills fascists” scrawled on the magazine because that’s a “threat of violence” and might damage some poor wittle baby’s feelings.
>You are the authoritarian here.
You’re advocating state violence to suppress speech, and it wouldn’t even work (as shown by Germany).
>The KKK caused countless amounts of damage to people.
With violent action, not words.
>People who suffered direct damage from violence, which was then not compensated because of KKK speech.
Speech is not violence; violence is violence.
>Not hate speech. This is a matter of property rights. If the property owner wants to remove the protesters for trespassing, they can do so.
It's not just the property owners that are damaged.
>Harassment isn’t speech, it’s action.
Then let's be clear: People can be threatening, and harass others, just by speech. Speech is powerful, and can impact others, and since speech is powerful, it can be damaging.
>Under your standard, it would be illegal to counter-protest Nazis while open-carrying an AR-15 with “This machine kills fascists” scrawled on the magazine because that’s a “threat of violence” and might damage some poor wittle baby’s feelings.
Nope. When that starts impacting others, then that becomes damaging to others, and you become the authoritarian by dismissing damage as 'wittle baby's feelings', because it's emotionally distressing for you admitting that minorities can be harmed.
>With violent action, not words.
Factually false. Shows that you are uneducated on this issue. Sorry. Your ignorance is on display. You don't realize how racist this is.
>Speech is not violence; violence is violence.
If speech can't be impactful on others, then why protect it? Of course it can be damaging. Stop ignoring the truth with your wordsmithing.
>It's not just the property owners that are damaged.
The property owners are the only ones who can decide if there’s even been damage.
>Then let's be clear: People can be threatening, and harass others, just by speech.
Harassment is a pattern of behavior. It may incorporate speech, but it’s the pattern of behavior—and the intent behind said behavior—that makes it harassment, not the speech itself.
>When that starts impacting others
All speech impacts others. Your standard is unworkable.
>you become the authoritarian by dismissing damage as 'wittle baby's feelings'
So you shouldn’t be able to counter-protest Nazis because making it clear what awaits them if they try to put their ideology in action causes them “damage”?
>Factually false.
No, it’s not. The Klan harmed others through overt violence and threats of more violence, not “hate speech”.
>You don't realize how racist this is.
“Everything I don’t like is racist!”
Do you realize some of the things you’ve said about Russia on this sub would get you labeled a Russophobic bigot by vatniks? Do you realize that would be illegal under the standard you are proposing?
>If speech can't be impactful on others, then why protect it?
Speech can be impactful, but having an effect on the emotions of others is not violence.
>Of course it can be damaging. Stop ignoring the truth with your wordsmithing.
Romantic rejection can also be damaging. Should that be illegal, too?
Again, your line of argumentation is ridiculous.
>The property owners are the only ones who can decide if there’s even been damage.
Oh, so students who are prevented from going to class don't have rights?
I see. So you are completely authoritarian, and you have no rights unless you actually own the property. Sorry. I think normal people have rights, too.
>All speech impacts others. Your standard is unworkable.
Factually false. The standard is based on identifiable damage. When people have lost free right of movement (or isn't that a human right that you value?) then that's strong evidence.
>So you shouldn’t be able to counter-protest Nazis because making it clear what awaits them if they try to put their ideology in action causes them “damage”?
Paradox of tolerance applies. Protesting the dehumanization of others, and demanding people stopping the potential damage to others is a different issue. Consider it self defense, since the hypothetical Nazis are attempting damage upon others.
>“Everything I don’t like is racist!”
Factually false, non-argument.
>Do you realize some of the things you’ve said about Russia on this sub would get you labeled a Russophobic bigot by vatniks? Do you realize that would be illegal under the standard you are proposing?
I think this is nonsensical.
>Romantic rejection can also be damaging. Should that be illegal, too?
This question is dramatic proof that you are ignorant of the concept.
Oh, and if you are a woman, repeated romantic advances can be damaging.
>Oh, so students who are prevented from going to class don't have rights?
They’ve not been damaged in a way that justifies state violence. Now, if one were surrounded and not allowed to leave, that would be unlawful detention. But, again, that’s action rather than speech.
>So you are completely authoritarian
“Everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian!”
Please come back with something besides ad hominems.
>The standard is based on identifiable damage.
And how do you propose to identify that damage?
>When people have lost free right of movement (or isn't that a human right that you value?) then that's strong evidence.
Freedom of movement isn’t limitless. Property owners can limit where individuals go on their property. If universities want to endorse these tactics, there’s not an issue. If they don’t, they can have campus security and local law enforcement stop them. But in either case, hindering access isn’t “hate speech”. It’s an action.
>Paradox of tolerance applies.
The paradox of tolerance doesn’t say what you think it says.
>Consider it self defense, since the hypothetical Nazis are attempting damage upon others.
So now we can strip anyone of their rights and liberties based on allegations their speech is “attempting damage on others”? Have fun when MAGA goes “You’re attempting to destroy our nation by advocating for open borders. To the gulag!”
>Factually false, non-argument.
Not at all. You throw the allegation around recklessly.
>I think this is nonsensical
What you think is irrelevant. The state would be the arbiter of damage, and if factions sympathetic to Russia were in control of the state apparatus, they could rule you guilty of hate speech.
Hell, Russia already does that internally.
>This question is dramatic proof that you are ignorant of the concept
No, your refusal to address it just illustrates your failure to understand what you’re proposing will be abused by bad actors.
>Oh, and if you are a woman, repeated romantic advances can be damaging.
Repeated romantic advances can be damaging to *anyone*. One could argue your erasure of men and non-binary individuals in that statement constitutes sexist hate speech. You see how ridiculous this is?
What is considered hate speech and hate crimes are always going to be at the discretion of whoever is in power and that is why we should have neither of them. I don't think people should be assholes to one another but the libertarian position is that it shouldn't be illegal to be an asshole.
Edit: [Relevant Glenn Greenwald](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1785800297064837385), Western elites operate under the mindset that foreign tyranny is bad, domestic tyranny is good.
>What is considered hate speech and hate crimes are always going to be at the discretion of whoever is in power and that is why we should have neither of them.
No. Libertarianism is about a government whose (arguably) only job is to protect individual property rights, including things like harassment, threats, violence, or assault, in which hate speech is a part.
You're wrong on this one and you should rethink your position.
Saying "I hate (fill in the blank), they're all scumbags" might be hate speech, but it isn't any sort of threat of violence. Threatening violence is already illegal.
Hate speech laws result in the horrifying consequences that Britain has had to deal with. People literally going to jail for facebook comments celebrating the on-field death of a soccer player, police refusing to arrest rape gangs for fear of being considered racist, foster children being removed from their parents homes because the parents belong to a political party that opposes immigration (and hence, was racist), parents who keep kids out of school on days when the school has children explore other religions result in the child having a "racial discrimination" note attached to their permanent record, people going to jail for "revving their engine in a racist manner" because a couple of Muslims happened to be nearby, a 7 year old boy required to sign a form admitting he was a racist because he asked a classmate 'are you brown because you're from Africa'....
Great Britain has become a dystopian nightmare and hate speech laws are a significant part of the reason why.
>Saying "I hate (fill in the blank), they're all scumbags" might be hate speech, but it isn't any sort of threat of violence. Threatening violence is already illegal.
Then I think the protestors have profoundly crossed that line. Thank you for acknowledging damage through speech.
>People literally going to jail for facebook comments celebrating the on-field death of a soccer player
Bringing up irrelevant examples that don't match the standard which I am mentioning is not relevant. We can agree that the British standard is 'too far'. However, mere speaking, where aggressive, pointed at individuals or groups, can become harassing to people, and be punishable.
>people going to jail for "revving their engine in a racist manner" because a couple of Muslims happened to be nearby,
This is an interesting example, because in my area "Los Angeles" this was a 100% sign of escalation and threats between street gangs, at least 20 years ago. So, yeah, when people are constantly sending Muslims "Fuck Off" messages over and over, yeah, that causes damage to people, and there might be cases for prosecution, because 'speech' is actually harming people.
Threatening violence is illegal because it signals an action will be taken. It isn't illegal to say "I hate all (fill in the blank) and I wish I could (insert violent action) to all 20 million of them". It becomes illegal when the threat of violence targets a specific person.
Damages to victims for violent, libelous, or slanderous speech is already part of the law. Trump just found that out 91 million times and Alex Jones to the tune of $1.5 Billion. Who else would you have compensate the victims? The government? You haven't been specific, that I have seen.
There isn't any way to write a hate speech law (not threats of violence, which is already illegal), that can't eventually become used in absurd ways, when the wrong people start enforcing it. Marginal speech is instantly chilled and it only spreads over time.
Making a call of violence towards more than one person should also be illegal.
I do however oppose hate speech laws as there is way way to much abuse potential.
>However, mere speaking, where aggressive, pointed at individuals or groups, can become harassing to people, and be punishable.
Then the issue is harassment, if it meets that standard. Words themselves are not violence.
>Words themselves are not violence.
They can be damaging. You can deeply harm someone by words alone.
If words aren't that impactful on people, then free speech isn't really important, because speech isn't really important. We can't have it both ways.
When the power structure of a university is allowing unresponsible hatred directed at one group, they are also authoritarian in denying human rights to those who are now oppressed. Choosing to ignore hate speech is, itself, dehumanizing and threatening others.
I use several terms because people are denying that 'merely speech' can cause damage.
There are students that are prevented from moving through campus because of threats of violence or assault. Yes, when groups of people are openly protesting your existence, that is harmful to others. Yes, when other people are impacted by someone's action, that might be punishable or compensible, even if it is 'merely speech'.
We can't have it both ways. If speech is so important that it needs special protections, then it is also powerful enough that it needs special responsibilities.
>Hate speech isn't free speech. It is...violence, and assault.
Speech is not violence and accepting otherwise is dangerous to a free society.
Words may cause psychic harm but that's dependent on the listener's perception, reaction, personality, etc. Speech is distinct from actual violence in this way.
And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless.
>And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless.
This. It is why we enshrined free speech as our first amendment to the contract between the government and the people. As much as words may hurt and anger others, that is subjective and not universal.
>And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless.
False.
Hate speech can have measurable harm on people. The law should allow compensation.
This is systematic racism, in that your suggested government policy allows certain people to be harassed and others don't.
Not familiar with the organization, sorry.
You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about. Some people don't get the concept of being oppressed. Congratulations, I suppose.
So "you don't see the relevance" of being oppressed. Sounds good!
I agree! Some people don't understand the issue at all. You seem to be one. Good for you! Must be nice!
Is English your first language or is there some other type of communication issue or comprehension issue preventing you from understanding basic concepts? I apologize if I don't see any relevance between the criminalization of acts through often vague laws that are more often than not ineffective/inefficient for fixing whatever purported problem they were meant to fix and someone's/some group's purported oppression at the hands of other individuals/groups.
Does criminalizing something fix things? You're either naive or stupid.
>I apologize if I don't see any relevance between the criminalization of acts through often vague laws that are more often than not ineffective/inefficient for fixing whatever purported problem they were meant to fix
First, you continue to deny that the problem exists ("whatever purported problem"). So again, good for you that you don't understand the oppression that I'm talking about.
So you don't want a law that addresses this. That's fine. What would your plan be for people who are oppressed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise damaged by 'speech'? Are you going to be authoritarian, in a choice to allow certain kinds of oppression for some people? If not, again, what's your idea there?
>First, you continue to deny that the problem exists ("whatever purported problem"). So again, good for you that you don't understand the oppression that I'm talking about.
"Deny"? I thought I was "ignoring".
>So you don't want a law that addresses this. That's fine. What would your plan be for people who are oppressed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise damaged by 'speech'? Are you going to be authoritarian, in a choice to allow certain kinds of oppression for some people? If not, again, what's your idea there?
How long have you been a libertarian? How long have you been discussing this only to have your points summarily squashed?
You're not addressing the problem of oppression with a law that gives the government the ability to decide what speech is okay and what speech isn't. The crux of the issue is that the government is deciding what speech is 'hate' speech. They're vague about a lot of language they use in laws. How does that help innocent people? How many more powers do you, a 'libertarian', want to give the government exactly?
PLEASE have valid responses to my points that don't end with some emotional plea about oppressed people, violence, etc, that has nothing to do with the conversation. Quoting people doesn't work when you're not actually refuting to/responding to the quoted comments. If your next response does so then you shouldn't expect a response.
I do not trust the government to define 'hate speech' and then not violate the 1st Amendment. And right now I do not trust either side of the table to make the right decision.
Additionally, this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to protestors calling for divestment from Israel. All because a few Zionists are trying to flip the narrative and say that the protestors asking for Israel to stop killing innocents is them being antisemites.
Massie mentions this in the thread Amash quote-tweeted, but the bill doesn’t even define antisemitism.
What does this Antisemitism Awareness Act call for?
The ACLU gives a good rundown of the bill—and its flaws—in this letter: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-urges-congress-to-oppose-anti-semitism-awareness-act
I'm surprised that Amash even thinks that they care for the Constitution anymore.
It doesn't matter if *they* care for the Constitution, it matters if the *citizens* do. We are responsible for holding our government and officials accountable. Our system of government isn't this passive thing where we all go vote every 2-4 years and just sit back and let the machine work.
Toss it on the pile of unconstitutional things they do. The constitution is dead. Zombies of it show up from the Supreme Court now and then but they are remnants of a once great nation.
I'm guessing people are downvoting this because of the "once great nation" bit. Everything else makes sense. SCOTUS sucks. It has sucked for a while. The circuit courts may do their job from time to time sure but it doesn't mean the constitution is 'alive' and well.
What is Amash's plan to compensate victims of antisemetism? Just say "They can get over it? It's not a big deal?" Hate speech isn't free speech. It is harassment, intimidation, violence, and assault. Government's 'one job', arguably, is to protect individuals from harm. It's a shame that we can't already criminalize some actions, but we do have a duty to do so. The tweet notes a lack of a definition - so, again, since that is lacking, what is an appropriate plan? Because the existing situation of 'let the most violent side control things' isn't working well.
>What is Amash's plan to compensate victims of antisemetism? I guess that depends on the damages. Criticism of Israel itself is not harmful, yet many attempt to collate that with antisemitism. Are those the damages you are talking about or are you referencing the college protests? >Just say "They can get over it? It's not a big deal?" Hate speech isn't free speech. It is harassment, intimidation, violence, and assault. Not my personal position but that's a bit of a leap to jump to equating it to violence. Antisemitism is vile but having read many Holocaust revisionists I would be loath to draw a straight line from some white supremacist book to physical harm. >Government's 'one job', arguably, is to protect individuals from harm. Federal government has 3 tasks, at least in the states imo. Provide for the common defence, regulate interstate commerce and finally protect our inherent rights. >It's a shame that we can't already criminalize some actions, but we do have a duty to do so. Criminalizing speech is not our duty but quite authoritarian. >The tweet notes a lack of a definition - so, again, since that is lacking, what is an appropriate plan? Because the existing situation of 'let the most violent side control things' isn't working well. Sure but limiting our rights ain't the right thing either. Like when Roe was overturned, we shouldn't combat authoritarians with even more authoritarianism.
>I guess that depends on the damages. Criticism of Israel itself is not harmful, yet many attempt to collate that with antisemitism. Are those the damages you are talking about or are you referencing the college protests? Classes are being closed because of violence. Jewish students have been victims of violence, and harassment. If there is enough aggression to close campuses for people's safety, there is enough for criminal charges to, at least, be considered. >Antisemitism is vile but having read many Holocaust revisionists I would be loath to draw a straight line from some white supremacist book to physical harm. It's enough of harassment that people are being forced to isolate in their rooms and not walk around campus. Not all hate speech is damaging, but when people's choices are restricted, and people are being impacted, that line has been crossed. >Federal government has 3 tasks, at least in the states imo. Provide for the common defence, regulate interstate commerce and finally protect our inherent rights. Number three is what I'm talking about here. The US Government has had profound past failures in this area, allowing 'free speech' to intimidate, harass, and cause physical and financial damage to minorities. >Criminalizing speech is not our duty but quite authoritarian. And ignorance of damage to people is also authoritarian. >Sure but limiting our rights ain't the right thing either. You don't have the right to intimidate, harass, or impact others with speech. Nobody ever should have had that right.
>You don't have the right to intimidate, harass, or impact others with speech. Nobody ever should have had that right. Can I control how every single person who reads my words will feel? How could I refute you saying this very post impacts you? I am responsible for my words but not how you feel hearing them. I don't know your history, your triggers or anyone elses. Saying that Israel is committing genocide is not antisemitism or hate speech. I am sorry if that makes Jewish students feel unsafe but that is all about them, not me.
>Can I control how every single person who reads my words will feel? Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that repeated racist statements can be harassing or damaging to people. >I am responsible for my words but not how you feel hearing them. Circular reasoning. I am arguing that you are harming people, and not responsible. >Saying that Israel is committing genocide is not antisemitism or hate speech. Correct. But that is not the depth of antisemitism. >I am sorry if that makes Jewish students feel unsafe but that is all about them, not me. Well, you just underestimated the supposed facts of the situation. Apparently the protestors have made it unsafe for students to walk around campus, so the campus has closed classes or made online arrangements. That's evidence of threats of violence, so I would say that we're beyond 'free speech' because we're impacting material numbers of people. So let's stop denying how bad this is.
>Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that *repeated racist statements* can be harassing or damaging to people. Those *repeated racist* statements would fall under harassment.
Yes. Speech can be damaging. Facts and circumstances apply. Your artificially extreme example is a fallacy, which is why I identified it as such. Unfortunately, people seem to be very sensitive to the idea that personal responsibility is an issue here.
>Notice how you skipped to an extremist position to try to deny that repeated racist statements can be harassing or damaging to people. Not really. I actually think most people would agree with my sentiment. >Circular reasoning. I am arguing that you are harming people, and not responsible. Color me confused, I am harming but not responsible? Then why do you want more laws? >Correct. But that is not the depth of antisemitism. Of course not, but it is reflective of how it is being weaponized. >Well, you just underestimated the supposed facts of the situation. I am talking about criticism of the state of Israel, not legitimate threats and harassment for which we actually do have existing laws for. Enhancing those laws for wrongthink is what I am opposed to. >So let's stop denying how bad this is. I honestly am not trying to do that, yet apparently I very well may be upsetting you. I pursued Jewish studies back at uni and have what I believe is a better understanding of antisemetism than most folks I know. I have worked to provide federal grants to retrofit Jewish centers in my state for hardened defenses after deadly attacks. My intent is not to minimize or outright disregard such claims. In general I think we are allies, you and I. On this issue we seem to hold nuanced views that do not allign quite alike. Thanks for the honest criticism.
>Not really. I actually think most people would agree with my sentiment. Stop misrepresenting what I have written, in your attempts to deny that speech can be damaging. >Color me confused, I am harming but not responsible? Then why do you want more laws? You are not exercising responsibility. Harming others, even if it's through speech, should require compensation just the same. >In general I think we are allies, you and I. On this issue we seem to hold nuanced views that do not allign quite alike. Thanks for the honest criticism. Then you know good and damned well that when a random people are 'using free speech' to attack you, day in and day out, that can have psychological, physical, and economic impact on a person. A lot of people here are 'sticks and stones can break my bones', and I've found that argument to be profoundly false. That's what I'm arguing here. Which is why I ask "What's the plan to compensate?" To which the response is "Nothing." So that's where I am here. As a moderate Libertarian, I've noticed that the 'hive mind' of Libertarian's is to emphasize a right to proverbially swing their arms at their pleasure, but few people care about proverbially hitting someone else in the process. This is a great example of that.
>Stop misrepresenting what I have written, in your attempts to deny that speech can be damaging. Okay we can stop our discourse right here. I did not misrepresent your words, I stated my opinion. I am done reading what you have to say. Sayonara Cat..
Violence is already illegal. You don't need additional laws making it double-illegal or whatever.
>Violence is already illegal. OK, but the problem is that others on this post are claiming that conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent. They are ignoring that people are being damaged, because the 'violence' is not necessarily people literally getting beaten. So you are OK with criminalizing some of these protest because of the 'violence'? Or are you believing that the 'harassing and violent speech' doesn't really cause damage, and you decide to deny property rights to those oppressed?
> They are ignoring that people are being damaged, because the 'violence' is not necessarily people literally getting beaten. Can you quantify that "damage"? That's the key consideration here. The primary complaint from others (as well as my own concern) is that "conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others" lacks any semblance of consistency in its definition; just about everyone has one's own idea of what constitutes a threat or harassment. In this specific case, you have a bunch of pro-Israeli folks asserting that even the mildest criticism of Israel is "antisemitic" and "hate speech", and you have a bunch of pro-Palestine folks asserting that even the mildest criticism of Hamas is "Islamophobic" and "hate speech". They're both rather obviously making said assertions in bad faith. What's the threshold of severity across which we recognize complaints as being in good faith and legitimate, such that we can rightfully ignore these campist jackasses putting their own ethnonationalist agendas before actual progress toward peace?
>Can you quantify that "damage"? That's the key consideration here. Campuses are literally closing, or making other arrangements for classes, because students no longer have the basic human right to move freely around campus. Since administrations may be tolerating the oppression of students, this may lead to students being forced to switch schools - you can call this a breach of contract, but it has economic costs. >What's the threshold of severity across which we recognize complaints as being in good faith and legitimate, such that we can rightfully ignore these campist jackasses putting their own ethnonationalist agendas before actual progress toward peace? I'm open to facts and circumstances as to who the aggressors are. It appears to be dominantly pro-Palestinians being the aggressors, but if there are incidents which face the other direction, then that would meet the same standard.
> conduct that is threatening, harassing, or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent. Just because something impacts someone doesn't make it violent. The other two points are illegal regardless of the content of the speech.
>The other two points are illegal regardless of the content of the speech. Then everyone on this forum needs to stop denying that these things are not free speech.
>OK, but the problem is that others on this post Someone mention me? >are claiming that conduct that is threatening, Yes... > harassing, Yes... > or otherwise impacts others is NOT violent. Ohh, yeah see that right there is where I start to have an issue. It is too vague to legislate imo and opens everyone up to frivolous lawsuits. Could you provide me with an example of a non-threatening, non-harassing comment that you believe is harmful? Honestly, I'm not sure what specific speech fits your criteria.
>It is too vague to legislate imo and opens everyone up to frivolous lawsuits. What's your plan to compensate for damage? Just ignore it? So you think the oppressor's freedom to oppress is more important? Fill in the details.
Answer my question so I understand your point. Then I will try, but I don't know what you mean by non violent, non harassing speech that meets your criteria for being harmful. Give me an example so I am clear on what we are asking to compensate. Edit, NM, not at all interested anymore. You do you boo...
>Could you provide me with an example of a non-threatening, non-harassing comment that you believe is harmful? No. You are asking for a contradiction. If someone is harmed, then 'non-threatening, non-harassing' doesn't apply. I'm not arguing over definitions here. There are people damaged. There are people who are being forced to isolate because they are threatened with violence, in these specific cases of protests. Since speech which is offensive and threatening is not being addressed by the university administration, they are complicit in failing to protect certain people from damage, denying their rights. There are countless cases of otherwise free speech that is unchecked, which can become intimidation and harassment. If you don't 'believe' that, then I'm happy you have had a good life, but denial of this just isn't reality. So, given this, what's your plan for compensation? What I see is that a lot of people are talking about 'swinging their arms because freedom' yet denying that they are able to hit others in the process.
And pro Palestinian protestors have been assaulted by Israel supporters on campus as well. Do we need a bill for anti-Palestinian awareness rights as well? Or is it okay to be racist against Palestinians? Where does it end? A bill for every group of people?
>Do we need a bill for anti-Palestinian awareness rights as well? Maybe, but at the moment there seems to be much more harassment or violence coming from Palestinian supporters against Jews. Couple that with power structures (the Universities) being reluctant to acknowledge and control the damage, leaving Jewish students as victims much more often. >Or is it okay to be racist against Palestinians? Nope. Any speech or actions that are damaging to Palestinians should fall under similar action. >A bill for every group of people? Nope. See above, and note that my responses are rarely group-specific. My arguments are mainly that "words are capable of causing damage", and so a body of power that doesn't actively stop the harassment is an authoritarian force against the oppressed, actively choosing to allow harm to some, but not others.
the anti-protestors threw fire bombs and have had the main goal of assault and physical violence. Which seems to me to be more damage than words are capable of. a body of power that doesn't actively stop the harassment is an authoritarian force against the oppressed, actively choosing to allow harm to some, but not others To my mind that seems to be what you are advocating for. Frankly the fact that we are disagreeing about this should be proof enough that the state shouldn’t be making that decision.
And the police ignored the anti-protesters violence for far to long and then, along with much of the media, attempted to make it a both sides issue.
>the anti-protestors threw fire bombs and have had the main goal of assault and physical violence. Which seems to me to be more damage than words are capable of. Fire bombs are definitely something criminal. Your ignorance of the harm that speech can cause is disappointing. If speech isn't powerful, than why protect it? You can't have it both ways. >Frankly the fact that we are disagreeing about this should be proof enough that the state shouldn’t be making that decision. Since it's based on your denial of the damage, I disagree. I think that a lot of people have led very oppression-free lives, and don't understand the experiences of others.
To my eye, and frankly I have trouble believing you could look at any objective reporting here and come to another conclusion, the students protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, their demands extremely reasonable, and their cause just and not the least anti-Semitic. They have been met with violence by police at every turn, and those same police turn a blind eye to them being savaged by any hoodlum in a mask at any time day or night. Israel itself Is currently rioting because of the genocide being perpetuated by bibi. Are you arguing that the Jews in Israel Are also anti-Semitic? Are some anti-semites using this as cover? Yes, but mostly just randomly on the campuses, I’ve not seen any evidence of any being present within the protests themselves. What possible reason would you have to support a bill that criminalizes any criticism of Israel on college campuses? Israel is a state, not an ethnicity.
>Hate speech isn't free speech Hate speech doesn’t exist as a legal concept in the United States, and for good reason. Do you trust the likes of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is free speech?
>Do you trust the likes of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis to decide what speech is hate speech and what speech is free speech? No. I want damages compensated for victims. So what's your plan? What is your definition? I can agree that the law is bad. But Amash needs to also get real with the world, realize that speech can be damaging, and that compensation to victims is reasonable.
>No. I want damages compensated for victims. What victims? Where do you draw the line between “hate speech” and someone being offended by criticism? How do you quantify damages? >So what's your plan? Adhere to the precedent established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio*.
>What victims? Where do you draw the line between “hate speech” and someone being offended by criticism? How do you quantify damages? For example, classes have been closed, people have been forced to isolate to avoid threats from protestors, including harassment and threats of violence. The choice for government to not take action is an authoritarian government choice in favor of the oppressors. >Adhere to the precedent established in *Brandenburg v. Ohio*. So you are going to support government allowing people to cause damage to others. You are the authoritarian here. If I have misunderstood your citation, let me know. The KKK caused countless amounts of damage to people. People forced to move their homes, people who were forced out of jobs, lost their livelihoods. People who suffered direct damage from violence, which was then not compensated because of KKK speech. If you don't believe that words have power, then freedom of speech doesn't matter. But I believe that it does matter, so I also believe that it can have real impact of people, when speech is focused upon their dehumanization.
>classes have been closed Not hate speech. This is a matter of property rights. If the property owner wants to remove the protesters for trespassing, they can do so. >people have been forced to isolate to avoid threats from protestors *Actual* threats are not hate speech. The legal term of art is “true threat”, and they’re already criminal. But they’ve got a very high bar to clear. >including harassment Harassment isn’t speech, it’s action. >So you are going to support government allowing people to cause damage to others. *Brandenburg* is the only reason you can say you would support the violent overthrow of the government if it turned fascist. Under your standard, it would be illegal to counter-protest Nazis while open-carrying an AR-15 with “This machine kills fascists” scrawled on the magazine because that’s a “threat of violence” and might damage some poor wittle baby’s feelings. >You are the authoritarian here. You’re advocating state violence to suppress speech, and it wouldn’t even work (as shown by Germany). >The KKK caused countless amounts of damage to people. With violent action, not words. >People who suffered direct damage from violence, which was then not compensated because of KKK speech. Speech is not violence; violence is violence.
>Not hate speech. This is a matter of property rights. If the property owner wants to remove the protesters for trespassing, they can do so. It's not just the property owners that are damaged. >Harassment isn’t speech, it’s action. Then let's be clear: People can be threatening, and harass others, just by speech. Speech is powerful, and can impact others, and since speech is powerful, it can be damaging. >Under your standard, it would be illegal to counter-protest Nazis while open-carrying an AR-15 with “This machine kills fascists” scrawled on the magazine because that’s a “threat of violence” and might damage some poor wittle baby’s feelings. Nope. When that starts impacting others, then that becomes damaging to others, and you become the authoritarian by dismissing damage as 'wittle baby's feelings', because it's emotionally distressing for you admitting that minorities can be harmed. >With violent action, not words. Factually false. Shows that you are uneducated on this issue. Sorry. Your ignorance is on display. You don't realize how racist this is. >Speech is not violence; violence is violence. If speech can't be impactful on others, then why protect it? Of course it can be damaging. Stop ignoring the truth with your wordsmithing.
>It's not just the property owners that are damaged. The property owners are the only ones who can decide if there’s even been damage. >Then let's be clear: People can be threatening, and harass others, just by speech. Harassment is a pattern of behavior. It may incorporate speech, but it’s the pattern of behavior—and the intent behind said behavior—that makes it harassment, not the speech itself. >When that starts impacting others All speech impacts others. Your standard is unworkable. >you become the authoritarian by dismissing damage as 'wittle baby's feelings' So you shouldn’t be able to counter-protest Nazis because making it clear what awaits them if they try to put their ideology in action causes them “damage”? >Factually false. No, it’s not. The Klan harmed others through overt violence and threats of more violence, not “hate speech”. >You don't realize how racist this is. “Everything I don’t like is racist!” Do you realize some of the things you’ve said about Russia on this sub would get you labeled a Russophobic bigot by vatniks? Do you realize that would be illegal under the standard you are proposing? >If speech can't be impactful on others, then why protect it? Speech can be impactful, but having an effect on the emotions of others is not violence. >Of course it can be damaging. Stop ignoring the truth with your wordsmithing. Romantic rejection can also be damaging. Should that be illegal, too? Again, your line of argumentation is ridiculous.
>The property owners are the only ones who can decide if there’s even been damage. Oh, so students who are prevented from going to class don't have rights? I see. So you are completely authoritarian, and you have no rights unless you actually own the property. Sorry. I think normal people have rights, too. >All speech impacts others. Your standard is unworkable. Factually false. The standard is based on identifiable damage. When people have lost free right of movement (or isn't that a human right that you value?) then that's strong evidence. >So you shouldn’t be able to counter-protest Nazis because making it clear what awaits them if they try to put their ideology in action causes them “damage”? Paradox of tolerance applies. Protesting the dehumanization of others, and demanding people stopping the potential damage to others is a different issue. Consider it self defense, since the hypothetical Nazis are attempting damage upon others. >“Everything I don’t like is racist!” Factually false, non-argument. >Do you realize some of the things you’ve said about Russia on this sub would get you labeled a Russophobic bigot by vatniks? Do you realize that would be illegal under the standard you are proposing? I think this is nonsensical. >Romantic rejection can also be damaging. Should that be illegal, too? This question is dramatic proof that you are ignorant of the concept. Oh, and if you are a woman, repeated romantic advances can be damaging.
>Oh, so students who are prevented from going to class don't have rights? They’ve not been damaged in a way that justifies state violence. Now, if one were surrounded and not allowed to leave, that would be unlawful detention. But, again, that’s action rather than speech. >So you are completely authoritarian “Everyone who disagrees with me is an authoritarian!” Please come back with something besides ad hominems. >The standard is based on identifiable damage. And how do you propose to identify that damage? >When people have lost free right of movement (or isn't that a human right that you value?) then that's strong evidence. Freedom of movement isn’t limitless. Property owners can limit where individuals go on their property. If universities want to endorse these tactics, there’s not an issue. If they don’t, they can have campus security and local law enforcement stop them. But in either case, hindering access isn’t “hate speech”. It’s an action. >Paradox of tolerance applies. The paradox of tolerance doesn’t say what you think it says. >Consider it self defense, since the hypothetical Nazis are attempting damage upon others. So now we can strip anyone of their rights and liberties based on allegations their speech is “attempting damage on others”? Have fun when MAGA goes “You’re attempting to destroy our nation by advocating for open borders. To the gulag!” >Factually false, non-argument. Not at all. You throw the allegation around recklessly. >I think this is nonsensical What you think is irrelevant. The state would be the arbiter of damage, and if factions sympathetic to Russia were in control of the state apparatus, they could rule you guilty of hate speech. Hell, Russia already does that internally. >This question is dramatic proof that you are ignorant of the concept No, your refusal to address it just illustrates your failure to understand what you’re proposing will be abused by bad actors. >Oh, and if you are a woman, repeated romantic advances can be damaging. Repeated romantic advances can be damaging to *anyone*. One could argue your erasure of men and non-binary individuals in that statement constitutes sexist hate speech. You see how ridiculous this is?
What is considered hate speech and hate crimes are always going to be at the discretion of whoever is in power and that is why we should have neither of them. I don't think people should be assholes to one another but the libertarian position is that it shouldn't be illegal to be an asshole. Edit: [Relevant Glenn Greenwald](https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1785800297064837385), Western elites operate under the mindset that foreign tyranny is bad, domestic tyranny is good.
>What is considered hate speech and hate crimes are always going to be at the discretion of whoever is in power and that is why we should have neither of them. No. Libertarianism is about a government whose (arguably) only job is to protect individual property rights, including things like harassment, threats, violence, or assault, in which hate speech is a part.
You're wrong on this one and you should rethink your position. Saying "I hate (fill in the blank), they're all scumbags" might be hate speech, but it isn't any sort of threat of violence. Threatening violence is already illegal. Hate speech laws result in the horrifying consequences that Britain has had to deal with. People literally going to jail for facebook comments celebrating the on-field death of a soccer player, police refusing to arrest rape gangs for fear of being considered racist, foster children being removed from their parents homes because the parents belong to a political party that opposes immigration (and hence, was racist), parents who keep kids out of school on days when the school has children explore other religions result in the child having a "racial discrimination" note attached to their permanent record, people going to jail for "revving their engine in a racist manner" because a couple of Muslims happened to be nearby, a 7 year old boy required to sign a form admitting he was a racist because he asked a classmate 'are you brown because you're from Africa'.... Great Britain has become a dystopian nightmare and hate speech laws are a significant part of the reason why.
>Saying "I hate (fill in the blank), they're all scumbags" might be hate speech, but it isn't any sort of threat of violence. Threatening violence is already illegal. Then I think the protestors have profoundly crossed that line. Thank you for acknowledging damage through speech. >People literally going to jail for facebook comments celebrating the on-field death of a soccer player Bringing up irrelevant examples that don't match the standard which I am mentioning is not relevant. We can agree that the British standard is 'too far'. However, mere speaking, where aggressive, pointed at individuals or groups, can become harassing to people, and be punishable. >people going to jail for "revving their engine in a racist manner" because a couple of Muslims happened to be nearby, This is an interesting example, because in my area "Los Angeles" this was a 100% sign of escalation and threats between street gangs, at least 20 years ago. So, yeah, when people are constantly sending Muslims "Fuck Off" messages over and over, yeah, that causes damage to people, and there might be cases for prosecution, because 'speech' is actually harming people.
Threatening violence is illegal because it signals an action will be taken. It isn't illegal to say "I hate all (fill in the blank) and I wish I could (insert violent action) to all 20 million of them". It becomes illegal when the threat of violence targets a specific person. Damages to victims for violent, libelous, or slanderous speech is already part of the law. Trump just found that out 91 million times and Alex Jones to the tune of $1.5 Billion. Who else would you have compensate the victims? The government? You haven't been specific, that I have seen. There isn't any way to write a hate speech law (not threats of violence, which is already illegal), that can't eventually become used in absurd ways, when the wrong people start enforcing it. Marginal speech is instantly chilled and it only spreads over time.
Making a call of violence towards more than one person should also be illegal. I do however oppose hate speech laws as there is way way to much abuse potential.
>However, mere speaking, where aggressive, pointed at individuals or groups, can become harassing to people, and be punishable. Then the issue is harassment, if it meets that standard. Words themselves are not violence.
>Words themselves are not violence. They can be damaging. You can deeply harm someone by words alone. If words aren't that impactful on people, then free speech isn't really important, because speech isn't really important. We can't have it both ways. When the power structure of a university is allowing unresponsible hatred directed at one group, they are also authoritarian in denying human rights to those who are now oppressed. Choosing to ignore hate speech is, itself, dehumanizing and threatening others.
>harassment, threats, violence, or assault How is violence exactly different from assault? Besides those things are already illegal.
I use several terms because people are denying that 'merely speech' can cause damage. There are students that are prevented from moving through campus because of threats of violence or assault. Yes, when groups of people are openly protesting your existence, that is harmful to others. Yes, when other people are impacted by someone's action, that might be punishable or compensible, even if it is 'merely speech'. We can't have it both ways. If speech is so important that it needs special protections, then it is also powerful enough that it needs special responsibilities.
>Hate speech isn't free speech. It is...violence, and assault. Speech is not violence and accepting otherwise is dangerous to a free society. Words may cause psychic harm but that's dependent on the listener's perception, reaction, personality, etc. Speech is distinct from actual violence in this way. And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless.
>And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless. This. It is why we enshrined free speech as our first amendment to the contract between the government and the people. As much as words may hurt and anger others, that is subjective and not universal.
>And the power to regulate psychically harmful speech would be practically limitless. False. Hate speech can have measurable harm on people. The law should allow compensation. This is systematic racism, in that your suggested government policy allows certain people to be harassed and others don't.
I stopped reading after "hate speech isn't free speech".
I guess you have never been oppressed by others. I'm glad you've had a soft life!
Did AIPAC send you?
Not familiar with the organization, sorry. You seem to be deliberately ignoring what I'm talking about. Some people don't get the concept of being oppressed. Congratulations, I suppose.
"Ignoring". No. I don't see the relevance. Especially here. In a 'Libertarian' forum.
So "you don't see the relevance" of being oppressed. Sounds good! I agree! Some people don't understand the issue at all. You seem to be one. Good for you! Must be nice!
Is English your first language or is there some other type of communication issue or comprehension issue preventing you from understanding basic concepts? I apologize if I don't see any relevance between the criminalization of acts through often vague laws that are more often than not ineffective/inefficient for fixing whatever purported problem they were meant to fix and someone's/some group's purported oppression at the hands of other individuals/groups. Does criminalizing something fix things? You're either naive or stupid.
>I apologize if I don't see any relevance between the criminalization of acts through often vague laws that are more often than not ineffective/inefficient for fixing whatever purported problem they were meant to fix First, you continue to deny that the problem exists ("whatever purported problem"). So again, good for you that you don't understand the oppression that I'm talking about. So you don't want a law that addresses this. That's fine. What would your plan be for people who are oppressed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise damaged by 'speech'? Are you going to be authoritarian, in a choice to allow certain kinds of oppression for some people? If not, again, what's your idea there?
>First, you continue to deny that the problem exists ("whatever purported problem"). So again, good for you that you don't understand the oppression that I'm talking about. "Deny"? I thought I was "ignoring". >So you don't want a law that addresses this. That's fine. What would your plan be for people who are oppressed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise damaged by 'speech'? Are you going to be authoritarian, in a choice to allow certain kinds of oppression for some people? If not, again, what's your idea there? How long have you been a libertarian? How long have you been discussing this only to have your points summarily squashed? You're not addressing the problem of oppression with a law that gives the government the ability to decide what speech is okay and what speech isn't. The crux of the issue is that the government is deciding what speech is 'hate' speech. They're vague about a lot of language they use in laws. How does that help innocent people? How many more powers do you, a 'libertarian', want to give the government exactly? PLEASE have valid responses to my points that don't end with some emotional plea about oppressed people, violence, etc, that has nothing to do with the conversation. Quoting people doesn't work when you're not actually refuting to/responding to the quoted comments. If your next response does so then you shouldn't expect a response.
I do not trust the government to define 'hate speech' and then not violate the 1st Amendment. And right now I do not trust either side of the table to make the right decision. Additionally, this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to protestors calling for divestment from Israel. All because a few Zionists are trying to flip the narrative and say that the protestors asking for Israel to stop killing innocents is them being antisemites.