General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis flag in Virginia needs to go as well.
I don't give a god damn if its on private property, its an embarrassment and a state wide shame.
http://wtvr.com/2014/06/02/virginia-flaggers-erect-second-confederate-flag/
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)Time to come out of the woods guys and surrender. It's been over for a couple generations already.
Response to Joe the Revelator (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)No sane court is going to accept that the display of a confederate flag is an incitement to criminal behaviour. So the only way you could ban them would be repealing the 1st amendment.
Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The asshole in South Carolina was pissed off to the point of violence. Do we want to ban all the speech that made him mad?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)See: inciting a riot.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Basically it gives a heckler's veto to anyone who is gonna get mad about something.
The same legal rationale -- which, by the way, would never fucking fly in an actual court of law in the US - by which DU seems to think they would be able to outlaw Mohammed Cartoons or people flying the Confederate Flag on their own property --- could also be used against, say, Gay Pride parades.
It makes someone real mad. It "provokes lawless action".
It's a completely nonsensical and fundamentally unconstitutional argument. I'm not sure why simply saying "yes, people are bigoted fuckwads, but they have the 1st Amendment right to be bigoted fuckwads" is so difficult.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Imminent lawless action. As in, directly advocating or extremely likely to immediately cause lawless action.
Inciting a riot on the spot meets that standard. Drawing a Mohammed cartoon and someone driving from three states away to shoot up the event hall isn't.
Brandenburg has been the standard on inflammatory speech for decades, and is much more permissive than the previous clear and present danger test.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)People keep bringing that up, but it's not coincidental that they're not bringing that up in the context of someone getting on stage and yelling "burn the motherfucker down" to an angry crowd, any more than they're bringing up "shouting fire in a crowded theater" in the context of the unlikely example of someone actually shouting fire in an actual crowded theater.
Whatever the standard for prosecuting "incitement" under the precedent set in Brandenburg, it sure as shit hasn't been successfully used a whole lot since then, and it not only doesn't apply to blasphemous cartoons, it also doesn't apply to someone flying a bigoted flag on their own property.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rioting laws exist in just about every state.
But I think we got crossed somewhere, because I don't believe for a second simply waving the Dixie swastika is enough for the Brandenburg test. I'm pretty sure that's what I was telling that troll.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If this is who you're talking about:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/man-who-filmed-freddie-gray-arrest-now-in-court/
I strongly suspect you would agree that this is wrong, and a deliberate attempt by the authorities to intimidate. I also doubt that the prosecution will hold up.
Beyond that, though, we're in agreement on the fundamentals.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You are wrong, with this argument.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)Since you have placed the First Amendment on the cutting room floor.
Response to tritsofme (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)When Republicans are in power, their priorities for banning speech may be different from your own.
Thankfully the First Amendment protects all speech from people like you with an authoritarian mindset.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I think racism and hate are big problems, but getting rid of the 1st Amendment won't get rid of those things.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The state should not display emblems indelibly associated with racism.
However, it should not prohibit individuals from doing so.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)then it should not be allowed. It should be banned in the same way Nazi paraphernalia is in Germany.
madville
(7,410 posts)Shame the property owners publicly, notify their employers, boycott their businesses, etc.
The government should stay out of it on private property if it's not a copyright, slander or libel issue.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Incitement to crime? Incitement to crime is not protected speech, yes, but the display of a confederate flag obviously isn't that.
Or incitement to something else?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)probably felt he was "incited" to violence by all sorts of shit.
Saying "speech that might make someone really mad is not protected under the 1st Amendment" is not only a constitutionally fallacious argument, it's pretty much logically and ethically indefensible as well.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Yes, I understand that Germany banned Nazi flags and such. But this isn't Germany. And Germany doesn't have a first amendment like we do. Most European governments have more power to quash this type of thing. Our Constitution limits our government's ability to do that.
And no, this is not "yelling fire in a crowded theater." Why? Because yelling "fire" is not political speech. Putting up a flag,..that's political speech. And political speech is protected.
Otherwise what's to stop some Christians from claiming Gay Pride marches should be illegal since some Christians find it offensive? Are we now going to ban everything in this country because some group might find it offensive and react violently?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Some of these fuckers are still talking secession. You can't even make a JOKE about a terrorist legally in some spots and we allow the flag of rebels and white supremacists to fly proudly?
onenote
(42,703 posts)I take it you were (or would have been) on the side of those claiming those marchers should be arrested for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)onenote
(42,703 posts)I can think of one way, but it doesn't help your case.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And are you always that supercilious and challenging? Who do you think you're talking to?
Or, if you prefer, to who do you think you're posting?
You're a lawyer. If you cannot distinguish the fact patterns in at least three ways, too bad
onenote
(42,703 posts)The Vietnam War was an actual ongoing conflict with a current enemy.
Of course, that would make the case for punishing those who carried the flag stronger.
Your turn: Show me a relevant distinction that makes the case for having the government punish people for flying the Confederate flag stronger than the case -- not strong -- for punishing carrying the flag of Vietnam in the 60s.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)I didn't really explore the site, but did read the screed on the front page. It's obvious these people are a splinter group of an offshoot, since they can't seem to get along with the other "southern heritage" groups. I like the way they always cite southern heritage, without specifying what that means. When pressed, they spit out some vague stuff about states' rights, blah, blah...
Journeyman
(15,031 posts)It flew above a gas station at the bottom of the L.A. side of the Grapevine, the name given to U.S. 5 as it crosses the mountains between central and southern California. This was decades ago.
There were numerous efforts made to get it removed but for the longest time it was a fruitless effort -- the flag was on private property, and though you'd think it would harm business, the fool kept flying it. He kept it illuminated at night. We stopped at the gas station once, but only to use the restroom, and truly just to say we'd pissed at the base of the Stars & Bars.
I don't know what happened to cause the flag to be removed, but one trip we noticed it was no longer there. Perhaps it was the unofficial economic boycott that forced that good ol' boy's hand, maybe political pressure, or it could have been something as simple as a corporate office threatening to pull his franchise ticket if he didn't stop embarrassing them. Whatever it took, it disappeared one day, never to return.
I suspect that Virginia flag will be a might harder to get down, but there's no harm in trying. If you ask to use their restroom, though, you may think twice before telling them why. My piss truth certainly pissed off a pissant working the pumps.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)You throw the First Amendment under the bus with great ease.
Whether or not it is private property makes all the difference.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)I still hate it though.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)It protects some pretty nasty shit.
In the 70s for instance, the ACLU famously defended the right of neo-Nazis to march through the heavily Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie.
Speech should be met with more speech. People who choose to fly that horrible flag should be shamed and denounced, but they should not be made criminals.
merrily
(45,251 posts)However, seditious speech is not protected and neither is speech that incites to violence. In my opinion, hate speech should not be protected either, though drawing lines might be difficult with hate speech.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)The exceptions you mention are very narrow and well defined.
When you start subjectively criminalizing speech you are going down a dark path.
merrily
(45,251 posts)When you are tolerant toward symbols of white supremacy and secession, you are going down a dark path as well. I acknowledged that there would have to be a lot of line drawing as to hate speech, but courts do that all the time.
I wrote a post the other day about how healing had been the priority after the Civil War, but maybe the Union should not have bent over backwards quite so far to achieve that. Perhaps all the antebellum and confederacy worship should have been nipped in the bud then.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)I stand with the ACLU and those who defend the First Amendment even for those people whose speech I abhor.
There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. The ideas must be challenged and shamed, not turned into thoughtcrimes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)My post acknowledged there was not one at present. BTW, it doesn't have to be a crime.
There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)prosecution, if it was a joke and not a true threat. The First Amendment certainly doesn't protect you from the airline banning you from their skies after such a "joke"
And I'm not sure how you would ever implement around the First Amendment in a policy of prior restraint on speech that you subjectively find distasteful.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That would mean a court would have held it not be protected by the First Amendment.
If it's not protected, I would not have to "implement around the First Amendment in a policy of prior restraint on speech that you subjectively find distasteful." And speech I subjectively find distasteful is different from hate speech. Why do you keep changing my wording to make my position sound weaker? I don't respect that kind of posting game at all. It doesn't intimidate me and it sure doesn't impress me, so if we have another exchange, don't bother.
I used to take the same position you are taking, so I get it. I don't anymore. That's all.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)The definition that you arrive at is necessarily subjective, and as time goes on it is bound to be a political weapon.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Courts are still drawing lines or there would be no new First Amendment Scotus cases. They did finally extricated themselves from the business of consuming porn by coming up with "community standards" to replace "no redeeming value." However, until then, they had to decide case by case. The class of speech was porn or obscenity. The standard by which it was judged was "no redeeming value." However, whether a given movie or recording or comedy act or whatever had no redeeming value was decided case by case, with each case drawing another line.
If the SCOTUS decides to say that hate speech is not protected, they will come up with a standard to apply, as it did for obscenity and porn and every other type of speech they decided was not unprotected.
tritsofme
(17,378 posts)And this consensus is very positive. It would be a real shame if speech restrictionists reasserted power. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that your preferred version of "hate speech" would be forever upheld, especially by Republican appointed judges who might have very different ideas of speech they would like to ban under such a regime.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
And SCOTUS "standards" on the matter are a joke- starting with Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" all the way up to the so-called standard in use today, the "community standards" definition of "obscenity".
"Community standards" for obscenity are a joke because it is basically impossible to argue, in our 21st century interconnected media world, that there is any sort of definable "community" who would find consenting adult sex acts "obscene" in such a way that it could be drawn broadly enough to criminalize the speech of, say, youporn or the like. Or in other words, for every community that doesnt like it, there is another that DOES.
And short of culture war reprobates like Rick Santorum, no one on either side of the aisle is remotely interested in trying.
Simply put, if the SCOTUS had been even the slightest bit interested in putting the kabosh on pornography, they wouldnt have overturned Clinton's online decency law (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). Instead, They did, and now that horse is long out of the barn.
And a wise decision, as well- because leaving aside the moral panic "culture in crisis" concerns, it is well nigh impossible to come up with a consistent and enforceable universal standard of "obscenity" in a pluralistic, interconnected, 21st century society. What is "obscene" to some people- oral sex, gay sex, al yankovik getting freaky with bubble wrap- is a wholesome saturday night's entertainment to others.
And so it is with so-called "hate speech". What is hate speech to one person or group, is not to another. The government not only should not be in the business of making objective determinations about the content of speech, it simply can't. Not rationally, not consistently. Not without taking a position that one set of beliefs, belonging to one group, is the "right" one, to the exclusion of the view of others.
Bottom line, though, the principle of free expression is far more important than silencing even the most obnoxius voices among us.
merrily
(45,251 posts)my post. In any event, I used porn and obscenity only as an example of how courts draw lines.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There were a couple spurious prosecutions under Alberto Gonzalez, I think, and the porn company plea bargained rather than go to trial, so no underlying consititutional issue was challenged or adjudicated.. but by and large when you're talking about "obscenity" in the context of consenting adult media, again, it is the very impossibility of achieving a consistent objective standard which precludes the courts getting involved.
It's the same thing with laws against "hate speech"- achieving a consistent and objective standard is next to impossible, leaving aside the serious constitutional problems with criminalizing ANY expression of opinion, no matter how odious.
merrily
(45,251 posts)particular standards. Please stop focusing on porn. It's not the point.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Where has the court determined the expression of a particular opinion, as opposed to a different opinion, is not protected under the 1st Amendment?
So no, there are no "lines" when it comes to saying "this opinion is okay, but that one is not". Even if Opinion A is perfectly fine and Opinion B is the opinion of a shithead. Because that is flatly unconstitutional. Look at Fred Phelps protesting funerals-- You can't get much more obnoxious than that. But still, protected speech.
(And no, I'm not talking about threats or other plainly not-protected speech, but those examples are not relevant to this argument.)
merrily
(45,251 posts)the Court has held that expressions of differing opinions are not protested. Nothing remotely like that.
Speaking of differing opinions, though, the bottom line here is that I've reached the point where I'd like to see hate speech go unprotected and you disagree. I used to be on your side of this issue. I'm not anymore. I'm fine with your having a different view. I get it and I have no need to attempt to belittle you for it.
We don't have to build a bunch of straw men or pretend I posted silly things about the First Amendment in order to reach that conclusion.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)(edited to add: In answer to your point, what is commonly accepted as "hate speech" IS an opinion. The opinion of bigots, racists and assholes, to be sure, but still an opinion. That's how I got there)
But there is a difference- a big one- between believing it should not be protected, and arguing that it isn't.
It is, that's my point. I do understand you having a different viewpoint, but as long as the 1st Amendment remains in place it is unlikely to change.
merrily
(45,251 posts)to seditious speech, whether certain specific words create a clear and present danger, etc. Even the Court is not always unanimous on particular wording. But, those are the kinds of First Amendment decisions courts have made year in and year out for centuries.
My view that hate speech should be another exception to absolute First Amendment protection may never prevail, and I get that, too. Republicans in particular seem to have a libertarian approach to the First Amendment, since the Rehnquist Court anyway. And that has so far culminated in holding that money is political speech and corporations are people and therefore Congress can do zero about money and secrecy in political campaigns. I don't agree with that either.
Still, I would like to see the extreme forms of hate speech go unprotected. I think we are becoming more and more conscious that it is deadly. It causes people to kill African Americans and gays and to blow up federal buildings. I don't think the nation or freedom will suffer much if people are not totally free to urge others again and again to do that kind of shit. I don't think courts carving out some limited, reasonable exceptions to absolute First Amendment protection of that kind of speech will destroy liberty in general.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Wherever that puts me on the political spectrum, I don't actually much care.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rating, so you are in outstanding company.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Response to BlueJazz (Reply #14)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)However, the people who are gonna fall all over themselves to argue that "incitement" is somehow constitutionally bannable don't get that that is EXACTLY the sort of statement they are advocating be outlawed, whether they realize it or not.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)There's a hell-of-lot of things I don't like... constitutionally or not.
Street Preachers screaming their guts out that we're all going to burn like crispy critters.....Ads on TV...my neighbors putting enough pesticide on their damn lawn to kill most of the bugs on the planet. The kids across the street yelling and shouting at 6:30 Am Sunday morning.
And the list goes on plus everybody has their own list.
Having said all that though, it's wonderful to be alive and enjoy the things that I love in life.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)as to how I coming from a family of Jews view Swastikas and Nazi Flags.
Deeply offensive and representative of a history of atrocities against all that makes us human.
But I can hold that opinion and still understand why the 1st Amendment as a principle is big enough and important enough to even protect the nastiest, most offensive expressions of speech and belief.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...a little better for the oppressed. I think they know in their hearts that the problem lies far deeper than one symbolic flag.
Throd
(7,208 posts)I don't have to like it, but I have to support it.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If you want to shame them to take it down, then its your right to do so, but the government should not be banning free speech, so I would not support the government taking it down.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,368 posts)for quite a while.
I don't know if it is a business or a home or what, but it is on a tall mast and the flag is huge and it flys right next to the interstate, a very busy section of it as well.
Tampa. It's everywhere.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)That said, that POS flag should NOT be flying, depicted, or on display at or in ANY governmental institutions...INCLUDING government funded museums.
onenote
(42,703 posts)No pun intended, but no thanks to whitewashing history.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Private museum? That's just fine it they want that symbol of racism. Otherwise, I dont want my taxes going for it.
If that POS thing is anywhere in the Smithsonian, it should be removed.
onenote
(42,703 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)Or is it on the back bumper of your truck? Lol.
Ask african Americans if they want their tax money going to display it.
Throd
(7,208 posts)That puts you in some mighty fine company.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)Instead of ending in 1877, it obviously should have been extended out about 50 years longer. Confederates should have been tried and executed for treason and war crimes, just like Nuremberg.
onenote
(42,703 posts)tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)I am glad that others are taking notice, even though it's pretty hard to miss if you're ever on I-95 through VA.
struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)It's a bit too reminiscent of the original confederate flag
for my tastes, but it's different enough, and it's not an eyesore
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)however people have the right under the 1st Amendment to be obnoxious and offensive.
Personally, I like it when bigoted fuckwads advertise their bigoted fuckwadditry, it makes them easier to avoid.
Logical
(22,457 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Should that flag be on public state capitals? No. But private individuals have a right to fly that flag. It's freedom of speech. You can't stop private individuals from flying it on their own property.
I'm sorry...and I understand some people find that flag hurtful. But this is a free country where people have a right to their political opinions no matter how stupid, misguided, and hurtful they are.
The idea that the government should have the authority to ban certain flags, symbols, or opinions it doesn't agree with...that's not something I could support...nor would it be Constitutional.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)spanone
(135,834 posts)private property along I-65 south of town
nathan bedford forrest