What's worse: freedom of speech or controlling of freedom of speech

[Mayhem]

It does show in the numbers. For example, the National Front was threatening to win the last election. The fact that they lost just proves they weren't popular enough, which wasn't my point. Your argument would make more sense if I had claimed the far-right was taking over politics in Europe. But that wasn't my point; I said Europe skewed to the right and the far-right surged in popularity. In a world with hate-speech laws and "vigilant" fighting against far-right ideas, they shouldn't be gaining any traction at all.

So much for all that jazz.

European politics (well apart from the UK ) is not just left and right... there are 8 political groups in the french national assembly. To think all front national gains were because of the immigrant crisis is as idiotic as thinking none of them were.

No, your statement wasn't strong enough to convince me. Maybe if you elaborate on why that young lady's death was partly a result of the first amendment in a convincing manner, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Being allowed by law to show and celebrate your bigotry and hate can and will lead to people acting based on bigotry and hate. Group dynamics play a huge role here.

- - - Updated - - -

What a weird way to frame it. The national front had a serious chance at winning the election and Le Pen's position got a platform on the national stage, that to me are serious gains.

No they didn't and her position was ultimately rejected at the last election.

[downnola]

And who won?

The US is the only relevant country where they won.

Trump is a Populist con-man, not a member of the far-right. The Republicans, for all of their faults, are not neo-nazis or far-right nationalists.

[Mittens]

European politics (well apart from the UK ) is not just left and right... there are 8 political groups in the french national assembly. To think all front national gains were because of the immigrant crisis is as idiotic as thinking none of them were.



Being allowed by law to show and celebrate your bigotry and hate can and will lead to people acting based on bigotry and hate. Group dynamics play a huge role here.

- - - Updated - - -



No, they didn't and her position was ultimately rejected at the last election.

The fact that such positions even reached the second election is bad by itself. And, yes her positions gained a platform on the national stage and had to be taken seriously, those are gains to Le Pen.

[Mayhem]

Trump is a Populist con-man, not a member of the far-right. The Republicans, for all of their faults, are not neo-nazis or far-right nationalists.

Considering where he is placed on the political compass he might not be a membe of the far-right but damn his position is pretty far-right.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that such positions even reached the second election is bad by itself. And, yes her positions gained a platform on the national stage and had to be taken seriously, those are gains to Le Pen.

You're talking about the presidential election not the general assembly, two very very different things as shown by the numbers and the outcome.

[Forogil]

They surged in popularity but gained nothing? I thought your point was europe moved to the right in response to the immigrant crisis? How exactly did you conclude that if it's not shown in numbers?

"Far-right" is usually a code-word for nationalistic parties - and for that it seems correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ties_in_Europe

Nationalist parties in Europe have been on the rise since the early 2010s due to, according to some, austerity measures and immigration.

Not all of them right, some nationalistic parties are socialistic - some are more center in economic terms.

[Deleted]

The fact that such positions even reached the second election is bad by itself. And, yes her positions gained a platform on the national stage and had to be taken seriously, those are gains to Le Pen.

That's why her party only got 8 deputies in the National Assembly? Melenchon got 17 with his new party. Macron 308.

[Mittens]

Considering where he is placed on the political compass he might not be a membe of the far-right but damn his position is pretty far-right.

- - - Updated - - -



You're talking about the presidential election not the general assembly, two very very different things as shown by the numbers and the outcome.

And my claim was that they made gains. And they did, they got their platform to be taken seriously. Think of it for a moment, France for a moment seriously thought that a borderline Nazi was a good option for a president, I'm not sure how you can frame that as the far right not making any gains.

[Deleted]

And my claim was that they made gains. And they did, they got their platform to be taken seriously. Think of it for a moment, France for a moment seriously thought that a borderline Nazi was a good option for a president, I'm not sure how you can frame that as the far right not making any gains.

Except it really didn't. 25% was the max, after a period of mistrust with the older parties. But the second round shown how little chance she had and the complete disaster of FN for the National Assembly confirmed it was all but a dream. Plus, Trump is doing a great job of showing us what we should avoid.

[Mayhem]

And my claim was that they made gains. And they did, they got their platform to be taken seriously. Think of it for a moment, France for a moment seriously thought that a borderline Nazi was a good option for a president, I'm not sure how you can frame that as the far right not making any gains.

No, france never thought that... what are you talking about?

In what world can this be described as "france for a moment seriously thought that a borderline nazi was a good option for a president"?


blue: le pen
orange: macron

[Mittens]

No, france never thought that... what are you talking about?

In what world can this be described as "france for a moment seriously thought that a borderline nazi was a good option for a president"?


blue: le pen
orange: macron

The fact that she beat the main parties and reached for the second election? If they didn't think that she wouldn't have made it that far.

[Mayhem]

The fact that she beat the main parties and reached for the second election? If they didn't think that she wouldn't have made it that far.

She beat the main parties candidates by not even 2%... That's how politics work in europe (again except for the UK), not even main parties are safe when the people think they fucked up too much. Still her person who gained the votes didn't help to preserve those votes for her party. And she didn't come across as a nazi at least going by some interviews with people who have voted for her.

[Endus]

She beat the main parties candidates by not even 2%... That's how politics work in europe (again except for the UK), not even main parties are safe when the people think they fucked up too much. Still her person who gained the votes didn't help to preserve those votes for her party. And she didn't come across as a nazi at least going by some interviews with people who have voted for her.

Plus, in countries where there's more than two "real" parties of relevance, people are WAY more likely to make "protest votes" against the government by voting wildly against them. See also Canada where the NDP recently became the official opposition for a term, booting the Liberal Party to the #3 slot for the first time in their history. That's since gone back to a Liberal majority government, because politics in these kinds of systems is WAY more fickle and "swing-y" than American politics, which all turns on the shifting of about 20% of the population or so (arguably less, if you focus it down to the State level and the specific swing states involved).

And then people saw Le Pen get that second slot, and it went for another election, and most of France basically said "we didn't REALLY mean it, jesus, get Macron in there."

[Mittens]

She beat the main parties candidates by not even 2%... That's how politics work in europe (again except for the UK), not even main parties are safe when the people think they fucked up too much. Still her person who gained the votes didn't help to preserve those votes for her party. And she didn't come across as a nazi at least going by some interviews with people who have voted for her.

And the normal response is not to vote for borderline nazis

[Forogil]

Plus, in countries where there's more than two "real" parties of relevance, people are WAY more likely to make "protest votes" against the government by voting wildly against them. See also Canada where the NDP recently became the official opposition for a term, booting the Liberal Party to the #3 slot for the first time in their history. That's since gone back to a Liberal majority government, because politics in these kinds of systems is WAY more fickle and "swing-y" than American politics, which all turns on the shifting of about 20% of the population or so (arguably less, if you focus it down to the State level and the specific swing states involved).

And then people saw Le Pen get that second slot, and it went for another election, and most of France basically said "we didn't REALLY mean it, jesus, get Macron in there."

Doesn't explain why almost 3 millions more voted for Le Pen in the second round than in the first - and 5 millions more voted for no-one in the second round compared to the first one.

(BTW: According to unreliable politicalcompass Macron was very far to the right and Le Pen center.)

[downnola]

Being allowed by law to show and celebrate your bigotry and hate can and will lead to people acting based on bigotry and hate. Group dynamics play a huge role here.

If we took this argument to it's logical conclusion, you'd expect to see more political violence in the U.S. than it already has. You'd expect to see Neo-Nazis and the KKK play more of a role in political terrorism. On the contrary, the power the KKK wields in the U.S. has decreased dramatically without the passing of a single law against their views.

However, If you look closely into political terrorism, you'll notice the perpetrators are almost always bitter, pathological lone wolfs that aren't acting under orders of political groups. There's very little difference between the psychology of people like Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof, but you would hardly claim that Norway was cultivating a society of violence and bigotry, would you?

The phenomenon of far-right terrorism isn't exclusive to the United States, nor do I think it's more common here either. So I don't agree with your argument because it it doesn't dig very deep into what motivates political terrorism and violence. Unless you can point me toward some research that backs up your claim, I remain unconvinced.

Considering where he is placed on the political compass he might not be a membe of the far-right but damn his position is pretty far-right.

Trump is extremely wishy-washy with his views and often contradicts himself and changes his positions on a whim. One day he supports single payer health care and abortion, the next day he doesn't. One day he's a dove on Syria and the next he attacks one of their airfields. There's no way you can nail that guy down on the Political Compass. The only thing you can consistently say about him is that he's an authoritarian; that's all.

In my opinion, Trump is a Bloomberg NY liberal type that will say anything once to gain political points. He appeals to peoples credulity like a real populist, and populism is neither left nor rightwing.

[Slant]

Government restrictions on certain views fits authoritarianism nicely.

Not really, as those restrictions have been implemented democratically, are under the supervision of the constitutional court and thus the constitution and there are methods to fight those restrictions, should you find that they are applied to you wrongfully. It seems you very much don't know what authoritarian means.

[Krigaren]

The US zeal for their law of Freedom of Speech it is spawning too many debates that are distracting from the Ideal of Freedom Speech. "I'm not violating free speech by banning your sorry ass because the law only restricts governments from doing so". Hell yes you are. You are violating the ideal. Which is the way more important topic here, given that the law removes the dystopian alternative as a possibility.

The reason it's important to make the distinction is because people use the First Amendment to justify their right to say whatever they want and feel - incorrectly -that any actions that take away their platform to do so is in violation of their constitutional rights.

The rights of freedom of speech is a constitutional right between the government and it's citizens. That's why I, and others, will yell to our ending breath that "freedom of speech" isn't what people say it is, because it's not a contract between individual citizens, it's only a contract between citizens and the government. That's it, period. You can't use the constitution and the 1A as a defense against other people since that's not what the 1A protects.

Yes, there's the ideal of freedom of speech that is integral to the United States. But there's no law, no government protection that says that private citizens must tolerate, or provide a platform for other private citizens to say what they want. That's not how the law works, no matter how much someone wants to believe that it does.

[Slant]

The reason it's important to make the distinction is because people use the First Amendment to justify their right to say whatever they want and feel - incorrectly -that any actions that take away their platform to do so is in violation of their constitutional rights.

The rights of freedom of speech is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT between the government and it's citizens. That's why I, and others, will yell to our ending breath that "freedom of speech" isn't what people say it is, because it's not a contract between individual citizens, it's only a contract between citizens and the government. That's it, period. You can't use the constitution and the 1A as a defense against other people since that's not what the 1A protects.

Yes, there's the ideal of freedom of speech that is integral to the United States. But there's no law, no government protection that says that private citizens must tolerate, or provide a platform for other private citizens to say what they want. That's not how the law works, no matter how much someone wants to believe that it does.

Well said. And fear not. I remember a while ago I felt like I was the only one pointing out this consistent flaw whenever someone babbled on about the first amendment. And these days, a thread doesn't get past the first page before some random dude corrects that mistake. Things are looking upwards, I think most people finally understood this concept.

[Mayhem]

(BTW: According to unreliable politicalcompass Macron was very far to the right and Le Pen center.)

Uh be careful you're going to summon kalis with this.

- - - Updated - - -

And the normal response is not to vote for borderline nazis

That's funny coming from someone from the US.

- - - Updated - - -

If we took this argument to it's logical conclusion, you'd expect to see more political violence in the U.S. than it already has. You'd expect to see Neo-Nazis and the KKK play more of a role in political terrorism. On the contrary, the power the KKK wields in the U.S. has decreased dramatically without the passing of a single law against their views.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that researches U.S. extremism, reported 900 bias-related incidents against minorities in the first 10 days after Trump’s election—compared to several dozen in a normal week—and the group found that many of the harassers invoked the then-president-elect’s name. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that tracks anti-Semitism, recorded an 86 percent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the first three months of 2017."

"Data my team collected at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point show that the significant growth in far-right violence in recent years is happening at the base of the iceberg. While the main reasons for that are still not clear, it is important to remember that changes in societal norms are usually reflected in behavioral changes. Hence, it is more than reasonable to suspect that extremist individuals engage in such activities because they sense that their views are enjoying growing social legitimacy and acceptance, which is emboldening them to act on their bigotry."
http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-te...tremism-619724

https://www.splcenter.org/20161129/t...rmath-election
https://www.adl.org/news/press-relea...so-far-in-2017
https://info.publicintelligence.net/...ntFarRight.pdf

However, If you look closely into political terrorism, you'll notice the perpetrators are almost always bitter, pathological lone wolfs that aren't acting under orders of political groups. There's very little difference between the psychology of people like Anders Breivik and Dylann Roof, but you would hardly claim that Norway was cultivating a society of violence and bigotry, would you?

No but as the numbers show there is a clear rise since the election.

The phenomenon of far-right terrorism isn't exclusive to the United States, nor do I think it's more common here either. So I don't agree with your argument because it it doesn't dig very deep into what motivates political terrorism and violence. Unless you can point me toward some research that backs up your claim, I remain unconvinced.

Well you are free to ignore reality.

The increase in far-right terrorism in europe was/is based to a certain degree on the migrant crisis and how it was handled by the governments and the media. One of the highest increases however was in the UK after brexit, when people felt their racist views are backed by society and confirmed by the vote to leave. That country had little to nothing to do with the migrant crisis.

Trump is extremely wishy-washy with his views and often contradicts himself and changes his positions on a whim. One day he supports single payer health care and abortion, the next day he doesn't. One day he's a dove on Syria and the next he attacks one of their airfields. There's no way you can nail that guy down on the Political Compass. The only thing you can consistently say about him is that he's an authoritarian; that's all.

In my opinion, Trump is a Bloomberg NY liberal type that will say anything once to gain political points. He appeals to peoples credulity like a real populist, and populism is neither left nor rightwing.

Doesn't matter what he says, it's what he does and what his agenda is. He is far from a NY liberal, probably as far from a liberal as can be.

Exhibit A: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN18J2HJ

[downnola]

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that researches U.S. extremism, reported 900 bias-related incidents against minorities in the first 10 days after Trump’s election—compared to several dozen in a normal week—and the group found that many of the harassers invoked the then-president-elect’s name. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League, a nonprofit that tracks anti-Semitism, recorded an 86 percent rise in anti-Semitic incidents in the first three months of 2017."

"Data my team collected at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point show that the significant growth in far-right violence in recent years is happening at the base of the iceberg. While the main reasons for that are still not clear, it is important to remember that changes in societal norms are usually reflected in behavioral changes. Hence, it is more than reasonable to suspect that extremist individuals engage in such activities because they sense that their views are enjoying growing social legitimacy and acceptance, which is emboldening them to act on their bigotry."
http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-te...tremism-619724

https://www.splcenter.org/20161129/t...rmath-election
https://www.adl.org/news/press-relea...so-far-in-2017
https://info.publicintelligence.net/...ntFarRight.pdf



No but as the numbers show there is a clear rise since the election.



Well you are free to ignore reality.

The increase in far-right terrorism in europe was/is based to a certain degree on the migrant crisis and how it was handled by the governments and the media. One of the highest increases however was in the UK after brexit, when people felt their racist views are backed by society and confirmed by the vote to leave. That country had little to nothing to do with the migrant crisis.

The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) said in a report released last week that politically and racially motivated crimes by the far right hit a record high of more than 20,000 in 2008. - http://content.time.com/time/world/a...949518,00.html

You were saying?

I'll say it again: far-right violence is not limited to the United States. Even countries with hate-speech laws and banned political parties deal with it. I haven't claimed it doesn't exist in the U.S. or that it isn't a problem we have to deal with. I just don't buy that the First Amendment has anything to do with it. That's a projection on your part and you still have all of your work ahead of you to prove that connection. I only looked into far-right violence in Germany, the center point of the migrant crisis, and found far-right attacks increasing prior (in the link above) to spikes in immigration in the past few years. It appears political violence is a little more complicated than you originally believed, wouldn't you agree?

Doesn't matter what he says, it's what he does and what his agenda is. He is far from a NY liberal, probably as far from a liberal as can be.

Exhibit A: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN18J2HJ

I don't think you understand what a NY liberal is and how his style is linked to it. I also think you mistake incompetence for malevolence.