|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
All-In [42021]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 8:17 AM
|
|
A little survey/discussion for here, inspired by a TIME article on the Biden admin's quest to curb right wing extremist groups but likely would be met with First Amendment challenges.
So here are the questions:
Do you believe extremist groups should be banned and prosecuted in America? We're talking KKK, Antifa, Proud Boys, pro-fascist, pro-communist, Florida-Georgia Line (kind of kidding), etc.--groups that push extremist political ideology or racial supremacy. Or do you believe these groups, bad as they are, should continue to be afforded First Amendment protection? Or do you believe only select groups should be banned? If so, which ones?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [47663]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30358
Joined: 11/15/99
|
Yes, but freedom of speech does not equal freedom of
Mar 17, 2021, 8:21 AM
|
|
violence, looting, arson and destruction.
The 1st Amendment also applies to folks on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42021]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Right. Talking strictly ideology here.***
Mar 17, 2021, 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26469]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20617
Joined: 9/2/02
|
Pretty simple ... speak all you want
Mar 17, 2021, 8:24 AM
|
|
Burn a building or assault someone ... jail time
PS ... any Public University that bans speakers from one side of the political spectrum should lose federal and state funding
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11626]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9788
Joined: 5/17/02
|
Everyone is afforded their 1st Amendment rights...
Mar 17, 2021, 10:04 PM
|
|
KKK, Antifa, BLM, Proud Boys, etc.
It does not give them the right to be without consequence.
What one person believes/says might be acceptable to one person and completely incomprehensible to another. The original person is free to express their opinions and beliefs. But it not without consequence. It might cost you your job, friends, social standing, etc. But it is protected under the 1st Amendment, IMHO within reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97664]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64804
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I believe they all are protected, right up to the point they
Mar 17, 2021, 8:33 AM
|
|
break a law. KKK, Antifa, Proud Boys, wacko environmentalists groups, Communists, socialists, BLM, Black Panthers, all of them should be free to spout whatever racism, sexist, bigited, political garbage they want.
When you ban them, you actually draw more people to them, whereas letting them be free to openly express themselves turns most people off. It creates an illusion of legitimacy, and they use supression to attract people, and more power for them when they exist on the internet speaking freely, but then in public they're banned, or otherwise silenced. Silencing them only makes them more powerful and gives them a legitimacy and appeal they would otherwise not have if they were allowed to turn everyone off speaking freely.
Just how I see it. The more you silence speech, even hate speech, the more powerful and dangerous the haters become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 17365
Joined: 2/1/99
|
Well said. Banning the fringes of free speech is a slippery
Mar 17, 2021, 9:17 AM
|
|
slope. We should be very wary of conceding any ground with regard to the first amendment, even for the worst of us.
And as Tiggity said, I think it backfires if you do. It just adds to their "we're being attacked and held down" and "look how impactful we are...the government is afraid of us" sales pitches. It grows these groups while hiding them from the rest of us...bad, bad, bad.
In a free country of over 330 million people, you're going to see some things you don't like. That's one of the prices of living in a free country, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: I believe they all are protected, right up to the point they
Mar 17, 2021, 12:00 PM
[ in reply to I believe they all are protected, right up to the point they ] |
|
When people hold this horrible, hateful ideas - I would like to know who they are. Let them speak out so we can see - and condemn their extreme ideas.
However, I have a question. Is there a connection between their hateful speech and the illegal actions of another ? Is that possible ? And can they be held accountable for such ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26419
Joined: 12/6/98
|
extremist groups voice should be allowed
Mar 17, 2021, 9:37 AM
|
|
until they threaten bodily harm or act violently
However, I do agree with outlawing Florida-Georgia Line
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [23969]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12093
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 11:42 AM
|
|
If it were popular speech, it wouldn't have to be protected.
I would be ok with banning groups based on ideology, as long as I am the person that gets to decide which groups are banned. Otherwise, I will go with protecting speech even for bafoons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4679]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6557
Joined: 4/11/20
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 12:08 PM
|
|
You forgot to add BLM to your list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11399
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Banned? - No. Prosecuted? - Yes (if they break any laws)
Mar 17, 2021, 12:59 PM
|
|
The US should allow for everyone's voices to be heard.
But when those voices turn into riots - arrest and prosecute the rioters.
If Biden wants to curb right wing extremist groups - he also needs to curb the left wing groups who break laws. (That would make for an awkward situation if his VP was really involved in paying the bail to get BLM rioters out of jail.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Criminal actions should be punished.
Mar 17, 2021, 1:49 PM
|
|
You can't punish a group of people for believing things in a certain way. But if they do something criminal, then you do something about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 2:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12563]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6299
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 2:34 PM
|
|
It would appear that the consensus here on this august forum is that the First Amendment protecting free speech is to be respected even if we disagree greatly with the content of the speech. It's sad that many of the current Clemson student body have a different take, as they want Tomi Lahren banned from talking on April 8th at the Madren Center. What happened to protesting outside the venue or asking hard questions of someone you disagree with? Banning anyone from speaking at a university is antithetical to the idea of higher education. Where does this stop?
Aryeh Neier, who worked 15 years for the ACLU and was executive director for 8 years said it well. "In a country where free speech generally prevails, it is best to take hate speech in stride. Ignoring it sometimes works, as does overwhelming it with the peaceful expression of contrary views.Trying to forbid or violently confront hate speech not only violates established American constitutional principles, those tactics also are counterproductive. Prohibition or violence may even elicit sympathy and support for hateful causes, and they give groups like the Chicago Nazis the attention they crave, and without which they cannot survive."
Lahren while generally conservative is far from a Nazi or KKK devotee. The administration should let her speak and not cave into demands from a minority though significant number of students who aren't content to voice their disapproval of her views, but want her banned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42021]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 2:44 PM
|
|
What the latest on that? I didn't think the admin was caving. I hope not.
I enjoyed all the speakers I got to hear at Clemson, even if I disagreed with them. It was great hearing a variety of viewpoints. Newt Gingrich, Woody Harrelson, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Jack Anderson... all came to talk politics. I found it interesting to hear.
So I agree. Go hear what she has to say, engage... or don't and still disagree. But at least hear what she has to say first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12563]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6299
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment
Mar 17, 2021, 3:05 PM
|
|
As far as I know, Lahren is still on. While I'm fairly conservative, I have no desire to hear her speak. She likes stirring the pot a bit more than I prefer, but stir away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42021]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38173
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Part of the mistake her opponents are making...
Mar 17, 2021, 3:07 PM
|
|
In this case is giving her too much attention by trying to ban her.
When you ignore people like her, they tend to fade away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9646]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11399
Joined: 9/10/99
|
Yep - show up and if they have a Q&A - ask pointed questions
Mar 17, 2021, 4:43 PM
[ in reply to Re: Radical groups vs. the First Amendment ] |
|
about her view points.
Stand outside and protest.
But don't bully people going in. Don't take their picture and attempt to vox them (whatever that means) online.
And definitely don't show up with a bunch of folks and shout her down. What a POS move - it was done a lot in 2017. I still don't know why that's not disturbing the peace (since there are other people there that want to hear what the speaker has to say.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7182]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3176
Joined: 10/20/12
|
Yes, protect all their free speech
Mar 18, 2021, 5:22 AM
|
|
What they (the groups) get to decide is how each of us interpret their words or the results/effects that their words cause them. They can all say what they want (within limits of course, ie hate speech, "fire" in a movie theater), but they don't get to choose what the repercussions are from that speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 20
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
