Poll: Most California Democrats want to restrict free speech from white nationalists - Polidicks

[quote]BERKELEY — In this cradle of the free speech movement, from the very campus where the First Amendment has been tested time and again, a new poll from UC Berkeley shows California voters are split over the delicate question of whether white nationalist groups should be allowed to demonstrate. Forty-six percent of California voters say we’ve gone too far in allowing white nationalists to demonstrate while 43 percent say the rallies should not be restricted and 11 percent had no opinion. And Democrats, especially, appear to be grappling with the complex issue in deep blue California. In the wake of violent protests from Charlottesville to Berkeley, more than half, a full 53 percent of California’s Democratic voters, believe we have gone too far in allowing those demonstrations. Some 50 percent of California Republicans, meanwhile, believe the right to demonstrate should not be restricted, compared with 39 percent of Democrats. “I would have thought the liberals would be defending the right to demonstrate in general,” said Mark DiCamillo, who conducted the poll of California registered voters for the university’s Institute of Governmental Studies. [t]http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sjm-l-racepoll-0913-90.jpg[/t] [/quote] [url]http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/poll-most-california-democrats-want-to-restrict-free-speech-from-white-nationalists/[/url] Poll probably taken in relation to several speakers showing up to Berkeley throughout this month (Ben Shapiro, Milo, Steve Bannon, Ann Coulter, etc). Most interesting data point is the difference between "Very Liberal" and "Liberal." Only reason I can imagine that difference is that the people who identify as very liberal realize that their group could be targeted by similar restrictions if they are seen as extreme.

[QUOTE]I would have thought the liberals would be defending the right to demonstrate in general[/QUOTE] Sure, when it isn't Nazis that are protesting

Considering how divided Republicans and Democrats tend to be on things I'm surprised how close opinions are

it depends on your definition of "restricted". If were talking about armed nutjobs wearing MOLLE vest with confederate patches walking the street, they should face restrictions. Free speech stops when your speech impedes on the safety and rights of others.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52680072]Considering how divided Republicans and Democrats tend to be on things I'm surprised how close opinions are[/QUOTE] Considering how massively more extreme Nazi idealogy is compared to basically everything else on the planet, it'd be pretty sad if Republicans didn't share the same opinion

[QUOTE=TraderRager;52680079]it depends on your definition of "restricted". If were talking about armed nutjobs wearing MOLLE vest with confederate patches walking the street, they should face restrictions. Free speech stops when your speech impedes on the safety and rights of others.[/QUOTE] Theres a difference between calling for violence and being racist, protesting that all mexicans should be banned from the US because their skin is brown for example is racist but legal, saying they should be shot or you're going to shoot them isn't. What you are going to have to prove is that Nazi protests pose a [b]direct[/b] threat to the safety of a certain group of people for it to be prohibited e.g. Starting a lynch mob to attack a certain group of individuals, which when you just have a group of people just preaching a racist viewpoint I don't see happening.

Playing the devil's avocado, if you make a threat to someone in public, you get arrested am I right? So how would practicing beliefs that are directly associated with the massacre of over 10 million people be any different than threatening one person?

/me inhales deeply from a crooked cigarette *gravelly voice* What's the matter Tudd? Feeling threatened? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Sgt Doom))[/highlight]

I do wonder why you don't have the free speech to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, since racists cause more damage overall.

The issue with free speech is that only people with shit opinions feel the need to protest about it, leading people to associate free speech with idiots. Kind of circular.

So I'm assuming that Republicans, being the defenders of free speech that they are would have no issue allowing some members of ISIS into the country to spread their message

I will never hold any judgement against those for their use of language, icons, symbols or clothing, but I will judge you for your deeds. It's easy to say that you're moral/immoral, that you're a liberal/fascist, its actually quite harder and far more challenging to act that out. The only exception here is whether or not you’re inciting or inflicting violence; that is the only context that matters. That is my personal opinion. In this case I find it quite simple: if you hold an ideology that is based on the 'cleansing' of race(s) through genocide, and you express that out clearly through protest, then we can safely assume that your right to free speech got suspended as you're directly advocating for inflicting violence and thus are in conflict with the law. And as it has been mentioned before me: I wander what the reaction will be as soon as you start importing other strongly authoritarian ideologies that has potentially the same genocidal tendencies - i.e. Wahhabism or Salafism? Will the GOP then still be so pro free-speech?

not exactly an unjustified view to hold tbh

The same laws used to silence Nazis can be eventually used to silence people with more reasonable views. Yea Nazis are dickheads but as long as theyre not physically hurting anyone or making threats, who cares? People need to quit calling for censorship against people they avidly disagree with. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52680333]So I'm assuming that Republicans, being the defenders of free speech that they are would have no issue allowing some members of ISIS into the country to spread their message[/QUOTE] If those members of ISIS remain civil and don't make threats, whats the issue?

I think there's good reason to not let nazis protest or express their political views as they please, one of the reasons being that it actually has a direct impact on how safe minorities feel who are in the area where the nazis are expressing their views. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52680626]The same laws used to silence Nazis can be eventually used to silence people with more reasonable views. Yea Nazis are dickheads but as long as theyre not physically hurting anyone or making threats, who cares? People need to quit calling for censorship against people they avidly disagree with.[/QUOTE] You should absolutely be very careful about this kinda stuff because yeah it could potentially lead to silencing people who don't actually have unreasonable views. But hopefully the laws are written in ways that make that very hard if not impossible.

Are we talking about white nationalists, a group of angry short-sighted racists, or Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, a group of angry short-sighted racists who are also violent terrorists who directly threaten innocent lives? A lot of people view these groups as interchangeable (and not without fair reason), which could explain the discrepancy. Nazis and the KKK, for example, are terrorist groups that deserve no quarter. Inciting violence is not, and never has been, protected under freedom of speech of laws. Terrorist groups have no right to spread their violent ideology, and yet these terrorist groups are emboldened and revitalized with the rise of white nationalist, and are thus considerably more active than they were previously. We absolutely DO need to be much more cautious and critical in giving them a stage. White nationalists, on the other hand, are hateful little shits with disgusting and ignorant perspectives of the world, but they have every right to preach their ignorance so long as violence or subjugation aren't their aim. I still believe them dangerous, and still believe that their rhetoric is an ideological "gateway drug" to Nazism and racial supremacy, but white nationalist are not inherently terroristic. Your right to free speech ends where it threatens the rights and safety of innocent people.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52680626]The same laws used to silence Nazis can be eventually used to silence people with more reasonable views. Yea Nazis are dickheads but as long as theyre not physically hurting anyone or making threats, who cares? People need to quit calling for censorship against people they avidly disagree with. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] If those members of ISIS remain civil and don't make threats, whats the issue?[/QUOTE] Being a Nazi isn't simply holding 'unreasonable views'. Do you feel the same distaste towards governments cracking down on Salafi and Wahhabist calls to violence? Should terrorists be allowed to reproduce and spread ideas in the name of free speech? How do you feel generally about this stuff, where do you draw a line? Purely physical violence?

Freedom of speech being revoked for a group of people who the majority of society disagree with (for good reason or not) is not a slippery slope we should start down. Exemptions already exist if they cross the line and start inciting violence. [QUOTE=TraderRager;52680079]it depends on your definition of "restricted". If were talking about armed nutjobs wearing MOLLE vest with confederate patches walking the street, they should face restrictions. Free speech stops when your speech impedes on the safety and rights of others.[/QUOTE] Most definitely. Taking part in a protest/demonstration with a gun should probably be made illegal. You don't need a gun to exercise your 1st amendment rights. [QUOTE=Megadave;52680210]Playing the devil's avocado, if you make a threat to someone in public, you get arrested am I right? So how would practicing beliefs that are directly associated with the massacre of over 10 million people be any different than threatening one person?[/QUOTE] An ideology should not be associated with the actions the people make in the name of that ideology, unless those actions are endorsed by the ideology. As I understand it, white nationalism is the belief that whites are a superior race for reasons; it isn't necessarily the belief that all other races should be mass murdered.

Freedom of Speech cannot be restricted just because some people find it distasteful. You can protest and debate in return, but once violence is involved from either party, said party should be dealt with via the legal system. Anyone suggesting that rights be restricted simply because they disagree with someones' political ideology, no matter how horrendous it may be, are simply becoming the monsters they hate.

Like BDA said, big difference between groups that should and should not be protected by Freedom of Speech. "I hate black people" is protected. "Kill all black people" should not. It's unfortunate that there are still people who exhibit clear racism and racial supremacy, but it's a slippery slope when it comes to silencing people who are not actively promoting violence toward their fellow man. Still shitty though.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52680940]Being a Nazi isn't simply holding 'unreasonable views'. Do you feel the same distaste towards governments cracking down on Salafi and Wahhabist calls to violence? Should terrorists be allowed to reproduce and spread in the name of free speech?[/QUOTE] Theres a difference between holding Nazi views and acting on them/threatening to act on them. Thought policing is pants on head retarded and doesnt work. Giving a group a persecution complex does nothing to stop them or dissuade them from holding racist or genocidal views. People like that tend to think "if I'm facing resistance, I'm heading the right direction". Giving them exposure and even restrictions just enables them. Nazis spreading a message is simply that; a message. Its not violent, it hurts no one, and hearing it wont make you suddenly grow a red armband. I like to think that peoples sensibilities aren't so fragile that hearing genocidal rhetoric wont make them genocidal, or physically/mentally scar them forever just because they heard/read bullshit.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;52680737]You should absolutely be very careful about this kinda stuff because yeah it could potentially lead to silencing people who don't actually have unreasonable views. [B]But hopefully the laws are written in ways that make that very hard if not impossible.[/B][/QUOTE] You mean in this country? HA HA, fat chance.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681121][B]Theres a difference between holding Nazi views and acting on them/threatening to act on them.[/B] Thought policing is pants on head retarded and doesnt work. Giving a group a persecution complex does nothing to stop them or dissuade them from holding racist or genocidal views. People like that tend to think "if I'm facing resistance, I'm heading the right direction". Giving them exposure and even restrictions just enables them. Nazis spreading a message is simply that; a message. Its not violent, it hurts no one, and hearing it wont make you suddenly grow a red armband. I like to think that peoples sensibilities aren't so fragile that hearing genocidal rhetoric wont make them genocidal, or physically/mentally scar them forever just because they heard/read bullshit.[/QUOTE] Again, there's no such thing as a moderate Nazi. In espousing Nazi ideology, you are perpetrating a terroristic ideology of violence and genocide. I have zero interest whatsoever in trying to "save Nazis from themselves" by coddling their victim complex or rationally engaging them, because they are already far beyond the point of extremism where rationality has any factor in their decisionmaking processes to begin with. Nazi ideology is [B]inherently[/B] violent and harmful, and the unmitigated spread of that bullshit [I]does[/I] directly endanger innocent lives. Much like the propaganda of Islamic extremists, it radicalizes and turns violent those who sympathize with a core set of fears and outrages, meaning that all who believe in the bullshit narrative of "white genocide" in the US are at risk of radicalization. I would waste no breath trying to befriend and convince a violent Islamic extremist that their perspective is flawed, nor would I on one of America's own terrorist cells. They are beyond rational discourse and now pose an imminent threat to the lives of innocent people. Protect their would-be victims by arresting and charging the extremists who threaten them with domestic terrorism, under the very same legislation that already exists (though clarified, if necessary) [i]and then[/I] focus on rehabilitation when they are no longer able to directly endanger human lives. And make no mistake: terrorists are exactly what they are, and they should be treated as such. They must be monitored and pursued with the same vigor, if not more (only because of proximity and imminent danger), as ISIS cells, agents, and sympathizers.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52681121]Nazis spreading a message is simply that; a message. Its not violent, it hurts no one, and hearing it wont make you suddenly grow a red armband. I like to think that peoples sensibilities aren't so fragile that hearing genocidal rhetoric wont make them genocidal, or physically/mentally scar them forever just because they heard/read bullshit.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Firstly: inciting violence is not part of your free speech and therefore will be judged in a court of law – if you want to debate that, fine, but the fact remains that it is illegal in the US (and most other Western countries). Secondly: what if someone does act it out, do you hold any accountability if it was due to your influence? Because what you're saying is that it is all solely the responsibility of the aggressor(s). The fact that there are enough people that so avidly defend such ideologies in the first place should say enough. They see themselves as victims and that is exactly where the problem lies, that victim mentalitity and their so-called 'white-genocide' is what makes everyone else that differentiates from that view a perpetrator. That view is very dangerous because then, in accordance with your paradigm, you can justify your violence as selfdefense; which has already been done, the guy that ran his car in a group of people in Charlottesville probably had the same delusion.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52680626]The same laws used to silence Nazis can be eventually used to silence people with more reasonable views. Yea Nazis are dickheads but as long as theyre not physically hurting anyone or making threats, who cares? People need to quit calling for censorship against people they avidly disagree with.[/QUOTE] First they came for the Nazis and I did not speak, for I was not a Nazi.

Where was I advocating for censorship or stripping away people's rights? I merely pointed out the distinction between inciting violence and freedom of expression - like you are doing right now.

It is unacceptable for views like this to be supported and advanced in the public square and sphere. It is foolish, shortsighted, and historically blind to try and prevent this by law. The State and its instruments can always be co-opted, corrupted, cajoled, coerced, or convinced to operate in service of influential groups by influential groups, oftentimes by undemocratic means, whether they be back-door deals, threats of violence, or demonstrations of force. For groups like fascists, it is especially straightforward and appealing to do this. An ideology that exalts the state as a set of necessary checks on the counter-constructive impulses of the public not only sees the state as a natural ally, but readily appears as a natural ally in times where the state is facing opposition to its hegemony. Any laws passed to limit or restrict speech place a loaded gun in the hand of the government. Narrow, limited laws - like the definition of hate speech - weld the gun in place, fixed more or less in a narrow arc where we perceive violent hate. But even with these strong limits, the gun is still there. It can be removed from its emplacement by legislation or extralegal action. No matter what limits we place on it, that gun can be pointed towards us. Fascists, white supremacists, Nazis, and the rest of the alt-right coalition must be forced into irrelevance by the public, and the public alone. It is unsafe and ineffective to rely on law or good intentions to accomplish this. We must make it too hard to be a Nazi in 2017. We must out them at work when they spout hate, we must block their marches when they take to the streets, and we must bloody their noses when they take up arms. There is no other way.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681317]You can disagree all you want, but history has shown that the "slippery slope" of censorship has always proven true.[/QUOTE] Most European countries don't have the same kind of Freedom of Speech you guys do. We can get arrested for expressing extremist views. Did we go down the "slippery slope" of censorship?

[QUOTE=CunningHam;52681023]Hats off to Californians for not tolerating domestic terrorism, I would have thought the conservatives would be against clemency for terrorists in general.[/QUOTE] I don't think you should count on the republicans to alianate a large part of their viter base :v:

[url]https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/[/url] Hate speech, and extremist censorship laws already backfire and get used to fuck with innocent people.