The Power of the ANTIFA Myth

[Greenday]

Tolerating things we don't like is part of being an adult. I don't like what they're saying but until they act then it's just talk. When speech is restricted for some it's restricted for all and while currently your ox isn't being gored one day it might be.

Genocide is not something we just "don't like". It's something the entire world needs to react to immediately and put a stop to swiftly. WWII should have taught everyone that. This isn't me disagreeing with someone trying to outlaw a hobby or recreational drug. This is someone wanting to get rid of entire races of people. People suggesting we let them continue on unimpeded are no better than those who let Hitler and the original Nazi party rise to power.

[Gravekeeper]

Tolerating things we don't like is part of being an adult. I don't like what they're saying but until they act then it's just talk. When speech is restricted for some it's restricted for all and while currently your ox isn't being gored one day it might be.

My ox isn't a war crime. >.>

[Canarr]

This should be blatantly obvious.

Ideally, it would be, yes. Unfortunately, most of the time, it's not.

For instance: using your own definition of hate speech,

Suggesting any kind of violence or discrimination against people because of their race/creed/sexuality/nationality/etc. Suggesting we take power away from those groups.

anyone who advocates to reduce the number of white people in positions of power, in favor of more people of color, would be guilty of hate speech. Because they suggest (1) discrimination because of (2) their race and (3) to take power away from them.

Considering this, would you like to revise your "blatantly obvious" definition? Because that's probably not what you had in mind, right?

Also, you can't always expect the bad guys to conveniently mark themselves with swastikas for easier identification. Most of the times, the situation isn't quite so clear.

Example: on a German discussion forum that I occasionally frequent, there was a debate on Israel and Palestine recently. Commentor A made the claim that Israel's settlement policies were tantamount to genocide committed on the people of Palestine; partially due to recurring issues with water supply to Palestinian villages.
Commentor B attacked her, claiming her post was anti-semitic and thus, hate speech. That was it for this discussion, the following 2-3 pages were mostly personal attacks.

Another example: during a discussion on Twitter earlier this year (pre-#metoo, but basically the same topic), Commentor A (white woman) put forth a list of problems women face in the workplace. Commentor B (black man) made a doubtful counter-post. Commentor A told him that as a man, he couldn't really comment on women's experiences, and should shut up. Commentor B retaliated by accusing her of racism because she was trying to silence his voice. The next few tweets basically consisted of different versions of, "No, but YOU are!"

Of course, on a private message board such as here, things are fairly clear. If a discussion gets out of hand, a mod or admin will step in and enforce the rules, and if they're unfair about that, we can just go somewhere else.

But in the public life of our society, things aren't so easy, and consequences of oppressing the right to free speech can be severe. Therefore, we think long and hard before being all to cavalier about dismissing other people's rights. Somebody else might be out there, dismissing ours.

[Gravekeeper]

For instance: using your own definition of hate speech,

anyone who advocates to reduce the number of white people in positions of power, in favor of more people of color, would be guilty of hate speech. Because they suggest (1) discrimination because of (2) their race and (3) to take power away from them.

Considering this, would you like to revise your "blatantly obvious" definition? Because that's probably not what you had in mind, right?

Well, no, what Greenday meant is fairly obvious to me. What you're doing is stretching a semantic argument over the concept of reverse discrimination and applying it to hate speech. Your entire argument flies out the window just by changing "advocates to reduce the number of white people" to "advocates to increase the number of non-white people".

Which is, generally speaking, exactly what is advocated. That there needs to be more women / people of colour in areas traditionally dominated by white men. Not that white men need to be forcibly removed from these positions.

Also, you can't always expect the bad guys to conveniently mark themselves with swastikas for easier identification. Most of the times, the situation isn't quite so clear.

These ones are conveniently marking themselves though. >.>

But in the public life of our society, things aren't so easy, and consequences of oppressing the right to free speech can be severe. Therefore, we think long and hard before being all to cavalier about dismissing other people's rights. Somebody else might be out there, dismissing ours.

The slippery slope argument that American's make in regards to this simply doesn't fly because there are numerous other functional western democracies ( with higher qualities of life no less ) with hate speech laws. None of them have fallen into Orwellian dystopias. You even specified mentioned two of them: Germany and Israel.

It's illegal to fly any sort of Nazi symbol in either country. Germany in particular basically makes it straight up illegal to be a Nazi and yet that hasn't turned the government of Germany into Nazis themselves. They also aren't the only ones.

France, Austria and even Canada have similar laws regarding Nazi symbols.

So the argument Americans make that we're on a slippery slope simply doesn't hold any water. Because the rest of the world utilizes hate speech laws and has not collapsed into totalitarian regimes as a result.

[Tanasi]

So your argument is I can have any opinion I want as long as you approve... Welcome to 1984 Thought crime...

[Gravekeeper]

So your argument is I can have any opinion I want as long as you approve... Welcome to 1984 Thought crime...

Well no, that was not my argument at all. I have no idea how you even arrived at that conclusion unless you completely ignored my argument all together in favour of being melodramatic. >.>

[Canarr]

Well, no, what Greenday meant is fairly obvious to me. What you're doing is stretching a semantic argument over the concept of reverse discrimination and applying it to hate speech. Your entire argument flies out the window just by changing "advocates to reduce the number of white people" to "advocates to increase the number of non-white people".

Yes, you are entirely correct.

These ones are conveniently marking themselves though. >.>

The slippery slope argument that American's make in regards to this simply doesn't fly because there are numerous other functional western democracies ( with higher qualities of life no less ) with hate speech laws. None of them have fallen into Orwellian dystopias. You even specified mentioned two of them: Germany and Israel.

You're partially correct here. While I don't know much about Israelian laws, I'm very familiar with our laws here in Germany, so I'll stick to those, for now.

German law explicitly outlaws the use of a range of symbols associated with the NSDAP: the Hitler salute, the swastika, the SS-icons are the most prominent. In addition, denying the Holocaust is also a felony in Germany; and yes, people are prosecuted for all of the above.

(Small anecdote: during our federal election cycle this year, a group of leftist activists in Berlin started a campaign of spraying swastikas on walls and doors in certain neigborhoods. They were unpleasantly surprised when they were arrested and charged not only with vandalism, but also with the display of prohibited symbols - apparently, there's no such thing as ironically breaking the law.)

However, neither of these laws I have an issue with. Anyone even passingly familiar with the law knows what they are, and knows they are forbidden; all is clearly stated. There isn't a lot of difference between these laws and, say, libel or slander laws: both clearly illustrate the limits of free speech.

What I do have a problem with concerning the whole hate speech discussion (and why I put forth that highly hyperbolic argument you rightly criticize above) is that it rarely stays within these clearly defined limits, but tends to branch out into anything and everything adjacent. Not to mention being used to discredit the opposition's arguments in a discussion (see the two examples from my last post).

Again: I'm happy to have Nazi symbols and Nazi theories removed from public discourse. They have no place there. But whatever we forbid from being discussed must be clearly defined and expressly limited to that definition. Hate speech cannot be defined as, "Whatever I find offensive right now!"; because then, everything is hate speech, and if everything is, then nothing is.

Not to mention the fact that elements of Antifa / the Black Bloc are eagerly applying the label "Nazi!" to basically anyone slightly to the right of Lenin.

[Gravekeeper]

What I do have a problem with concerning the whole hate speech discussion (and why I put forth that highly hyperbolic argument you rightly criticize above) is that it rarely stays within these clearly defined limits, but tends to branch out into anything and everything adjacent. Not to mention being used to discredit the opposition's arguments in a discussion (see the two examples from my last post).

What's your basis for saying that though? Do you find your country's hate speech laws went wildly out of bounds? Many European countries have hate speech laws on the books and have had them there for quite some time. My own country likewise has them and we have not fallen into any sort of Orwellian scenario.

I don't think anyone in this thread was arguing that hate speech is defined as whatever someone finds "offensive". I'm not sure I've ever seen it argued that way outside of maybe tumblr, youtube comments or other fringe kind of communities. Which is why I have such an issue with Tanasi's argument as well as the common refrain from American opponents of hate speech laws.

America is the only country that has a carte blanch on speech outside of pornography or yelling fire in a crowded theatre type limitations. The argument that if they move the needle even slightly away from that extreme it will obviously fall all the way to the other extreme doesn't hold any water. Because that hasn't happened in any other modern democracy.

Speech has demonstrably power and undeniable negative consequences when used improperly. When wielded that way you can't just ignore and hope it goes away. I find that some segments of America not only lionize free speech but have a completely incorrect view of what free speech actually is in their own country. As is oft explained with a certain infamous xkcd comic.

[Canarr]

What's your basis for saying that though? Do you find your country's hate speech laws went wildly out of bounds? Many European countries have hate speech laws on the books and have had them there for quite some time. My own country likewise has them and we have not fallen into any sort of Orwellian scenario.

Not the law(s) I mentioned in my last post, no. But our Bundestag passed a new law in June that went into effect on October 1st, the so-called "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz" championed by our former Secretary of Justice.

The law is valid for all commercial social networks with more than 2 million members and a presence in Germany. Those companies are required to react to complaints about hate speech by

a) deleting "obviously unlawful content" within 24 hours
b) deleting "less obviously unlawful content" within 7 days
c) blocking and/or removing offending accounts

Companies who do not comply, or who show a pattern of not complying within the limits given, are subject to fines up to 50 million euros.

Aside from the obvious risk, that a company like Facebook will simply delete posts or accounts that someone complains about rather than risking a fine by actually sorting things out, I have a huge issue with the state basically outsourcing one of its primary functions: determining and sanctioning unlawful behavior.

German law is fairly clear: freedom of opinion is laid out in our constitution, and our penal code lists its limitations (nazi symbols, libel, slander, etc.). If you believe someone crossed the line with speech or post, you contact the Judiciary, and *they* decide whether or not a law was broken. If you dislike their ruling, then there are higher courts you can address, there is a system.

This law moves that responsibility into the hands of a private company, with no forms of regress if you feel your post was wrongly deleted, and with no restrictions on censorship or similar that are imposed on state authorities. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.

A similar issue in my opinion is the whole no-platforming concept that seems to be a recurring issue in the US at the moment, and has already shown offshoots in Germany, Austria and the UK. Simply not allowing people with opinions one finds unacceptable to speak out, disrupting events and issuing threats.

Yes, speech is powerful. Which is why it is essential that we are very careful when we talk about prohibiting it.

[TheHuckster]

Speech has demonstrably power and undeniable negative consequences when used improperly. When wielded that way you can't just ignore and hope it goes away. I find that some segments of America not only lionize free speech but have a completely incorrect view of what free speech actually is in their own country. As is oft explained with a certain infamous xkcd comic.

In principle I agree with you. People who brazenly speak about genocide and use obviously inciteful speech supporting especially hateful views are abusing the first amendment to the point where if it's made illegal, I won't shed a tear.

However, in practice, what you're asking for is a lofty goal that is not going to just take a signed bill to enact. Said bill will certainly be challenged in the supreme court, and there's a good chance it will be struck down on the basis of the bill of rights. The only way around that is to add an amendment that specifically limits the first amendment to restrict hate slogans and symbols. That's something that would take a monumental effort to pass, and it would have to be very carefully worded to ensure it's as clear as what Canarr says Germany has.

Hate symbols have become an non-trivial problem because new ones crop up all the time in today's social media. Up until a few years ago, you had a pretty good handle on what slogans and symbols are hateful: Swastika, KKK, etc. Now new symbols and slogans are coming out on a seemingly daily basis thanks to the meme effect. Should "Make America Great Again" become a new hate symbol because white supremacists have used it as a slogan? Does that mean we've effectively made supporting the president a felony?

Suddenly Pepe the Frog is inexplicably adopted as the new swastika. It's so new, I've seen people use Pepe thinking it's just a cute meme not knowing the hateful connotation it has, and it's not like you can infer its meaning just by looking at him. What if tomorrow Grumpy Cat becomes a mascot for some hate group? Does everyone need to stop using him? If so, doesn't that give hate groups undeserved power by being able to manipulate previously innocuous and innocent symbols to become illegal?

These specific problems are very new. It wasn't until in the last couple years that we've had such a huge public explosion of racist rhetoric, resulting in a toxic culture of meme-ing everything to oblivion. Don't get me wrong, you've always had hate groups on the Internet being assholes, and they certainly caused cells of violence and inciteful bigotry that should be squashed. However, until a few years ago, they were in the shadows, speaking in their own echo 4chan-like chambers and spouting tired old symbols and slogans that everyone with higher than a 5th grade education recognize as hate speech. With new memes coming out all the time introducing new symbols and slogans, how do laws keep up without criminalizing what should be just regular speech?

So how do laws keep up with hate speech that just keeps evolving over time to the point where if you say "All lives matter" depending on one's interpretation you're either making an obvious statement that should be merely responded to with "duh" or you're Worse Than Hitler and should be thrown into a jail cell because it was chanted ad nauseum by a bunch of skinheads?

[Gravekeeper]

This law moves that responsibility into the hands of a private company, with no forms of regress if you feel your post was wrongly deleted, and with no restrictions on censorship or similar that are imposed on state authorities. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.

Yes, that simply isn't feasible. Moving the responsibility onto a private company will just result in said company either over correcting to avoid the financial penalty or simply leaving Germany as a market altogether. The nebulous nature of the internet makes it a very difficult problem to tackle online, but that approach isn't going to cut it.

It also passes the buck, as you illustrated. A private company is free to remove any speech or content from its site. It doesn't have an obligation to protect speech as its not a public forum nor a public entity. In fact you've straight up given it a financial incentive to do the opposite.

Besides, Large social media networks can't keep up with the amount of garbage on them as is and they rely on reactive user reports. You're not going to get Facebook to hire god knows how much additional staff it would take to pro-actively screen all content on its site.

A similar issue in my opinion is the whole no-platforming concept that seems to be a recurring issue in the US at the moment, and has already shown offshoots in Germany, Austria and the UK. Simply not allowing people with opinions one finds unacceptable to speak out, disrupting events and issuing threats.

Threats are already legally covered. As for disrupting events, that depends. Protesting is kind of the lifeblood of democracy. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, etc etc. Now, an event should not be disrupted with violence obviously. But protest and counter protest are integral features.

Yes, speech is powerful. Which is why it is essential that we are very careful when we talk about prohibiting it.

Careful yes, but carte blanc, no. But I mean, all laws should be implemented carefully.

[mjr]

I say again who is going to define hate speech?
Just because a few or many do not like what someone has to say doesn't mean the should be muzzled.
I guess with some sets, some hogs are more equal than others. Sounds a lot like Nazi and commie practices. There's a lot being said that I don't like but I don't call for them being silenced because it's just talk. Do you remember "Sticks and stones might break my bones but words will never harm me."

Many evangelical Christians are also derided for "hate speech" when they speak out against gay marriage, or are in favor of "traditional" marriage.

[Talon]

Many evangelical Christians are also derided for "hate speech" when they speak out against gay marriage, or are in favor of "traditional" marriage.

Play them the world's smallest violin.
Religious fundies haven't got a leg to stand on in opposing gay marriage. Even their tired old refrain of "it's against my religion" doesn't hold water. They deserve to be derided.

[Gravekeeper]

Many evangelical Christians are also derided for "hate speech" when they speak out against gay marriage, or are in favor of "traditional" marriage.

Well, on the upside you did put traditional marriage in quotation marks so there's no need to point out it has no religious basis. However, given that the Evangelicals are all the way down to using the Bible to try and defend statutory rape I can't say as I have a lot of sympathy for their feelings right now. -.-

[mjr]

Play them the world's smallest violin.
Religious fundies haven't got a leg to stand on in opposing gay marriage. Even their tired old refrain of "it's against my religion" doesn't hold water. They deserve to be derided.

Why? Because you're a militant atheist who probably thinks most religious people are morons?

I'm sure there are people who want the Bible classified as "hate speech".