Should we ban hate speech? Nazis in the street and the “paradox of tolerance”

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.salon.com/2017/09/03/should-we-ban-hate-speech-nazis-in-the-street-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance/

 

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, I’ve been seeing a lot of people — from writers at the New York Times and Quartz to ordinary Twitter users — refer to a famous argument by the British-Austrian Jewish philosopher Karl Popper known as the “paradox of tolerance.”

 

Because it speaks so directly to the growing concern that neo-Nazis and other white supremacists are gaining power in America — in no small part due to Donald Trump’s election to the presidency — it deserves to be quoted in full. Here is its best summation, courtesy of Popper’s book “The Open Society and Its Enemies.”

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.  —  In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

When I encounter this argument, my mind immediately flies to a very personal experience. Back in the early days of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, I was targeted by Andrew Anglin — the same Andrew Anglin whose neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer was effectively run offline after he encouraged violence post-Charlottesville — in a pair of blatantly anti-Semitic editorials. After describing how this was a deeply unsettling experience, I offered the following thought:

Although I have nothing but contempt for Trump and his racist supporters, I respect their right to free speech. I would rather live in a society that permits it that one that does not — even when some of the invective is directed at myself.

Only 18 months have passed between the days when I wrote those words and the present moment, yet the chronological gulf feels much larger. Do I stand by them now?

 

Yes — with one crucial caveat. While even toxic political speech should be tolerated, our society needs to be aggressive in holding those who disseminate it accountable. They will almost certainly resist, and that fact cannot matter in the slightest.

First, though, let’s address the two problems with arguing that hate speech should be banned. The most obvious is that the same logic which can be used by one group to deny speech to their adversaries can be turned against them. As Trump made clear when he characterized the anti-fascist counter-protesters as violent and provocative, individuals who oppose humanitarian causes have little difficulty in characterizing progressives as the true oppressors.

Of course, progressives inevitably respond to this by arguing that their ideology is so fundamentally different from that of the alt-right that the Trumpian position is clearly wrong. That rebuttal misses the larger point. Societies may be ruled with laws, but those laws are justified and embedded into our culture by abstract principles. As soon as a new precedent alters one of those fundamental principles, anyone who operates within that society can effectively apply those principles to advance their own agenda, whatever it may be.

“The ability to associate disagreeable ideas with the oppressor, and to quash free speech or other political rights in the name of justice for the oppressed, is a power without any clear limiting principle,” explained Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine in April. “Historically, states that rule on that basis tend to push that power to its farthest possible limit.”

The ACLU summed up this point quite succinctly after Charlottesville, when itsstatement condemning white supremacism also noted that “the First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech. For this reason, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ right to march.”

There is a second argument against banning hate speech, one rooted in pragmatism. Like it or not, banning hate speech is almost certainly not going to work, and could quite likely make their advocates even more powerful.

Take the Trump campaign. Setting aside the occasions when Trump skirted outright illegality by encouraging violence against the media or protesters, most of the more toxic things he said during his campaign were not illegal. The misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton and other women who criticized him, the calls for discriminatory policies against Muslims and Mexicans, the race-baiting of his birther conspiracy theories against President Barack Obama — those were all taboo within mainstream political discourse.

 

Being taboo isn’t the same thing as being illegal, of course, but it’s absurd to argue that social sanctions aren’t a powerful force to be reckoned with. Many politicians, celebrities and ordinary people have had their reputations and lives ruined by errant comments that violated the unofficial bounds of acceptable political discourse. Only a few years ago, it would have seemed impossible for someone as blatantly bigoted as Trump to receive a major party’s presidential nomination, much less actually reach the White House. (Which is part of the reason why many in the media failed to take him seriously.)

Yet the social sanctions that used to confine individuals like Trump not only didn’t work against him, they actually seemed to make him stronger, as people who secretly felt the same way that he did gravitated toward his candidacy. Thanks to the internet, millions of Americans who shared Trump’s prejudices could rally behind their man without fear of being shamed. As a result, he pulled off the greatest upset in American political history since Harry Truman defeated Thomas Dewey in 1948.

Can anyone honestly say that banning hate speech, as opposed to simply stigmatizing it, would be more effective? Such a policy would require rigorous policing of the internet, for one thing (good luck there), as well as a careful parsing of what type of rhetoric is and isn’t sufficiently “hateful” to warrant being prohibited. Would we call the police every time we heard someone praise Adolf Hitler? Would we comb through the shelves of libraries and bookstores to eliminate problematic content? Even if such a thing were desirable, how could it be implemented with any realistic hope of success?

This isn’t to say that there are no new weapons that can be used to fight hate movements like the one that congregated in Charlottesville. One in particular comes to mind — namely, enforced personal accountability.

As I wrote in July, no one who spreads hate speech should have the right to do so anonymously. As University of Chicago law and philosophy professor Martha Nussbaum explained, members of the alt-right and other hate movements need to be anonymous “to create for themselves a shame-free zone in which they can inflict shame on others” and “to insulate their Internet selves from responsibility in the real world, while ensuring real-world consequences.”

 

 

 

This is not a right that anyone should have. While anonymity in one’s speech is an important civil liberty for people who perform a legitimate public service, like whistleblowers or journalistic sources, it has nothing to do with matters of freedom when it comes to those who wish to harm others.

That is where the fact that hate speech is fundamentally harmful becomes valid. The intrinsically destructive nature of the speech cannot, and must not, be used to justify banning it. On the other hand, it can and absolutely must be used to justify personally naming every single person who promotes it.

Thankfully there are already heroes who are engaged in this crusade, most notably Philadelphia activist Daryle Lamont Jenkins. By forcing accountability on white supremacists, he makes it possible for the resistance against them to deal real damage to the movement without abridging their basic human rights. It’s the equivalent of taking an oversized bully and cutting him or her down to the same size as everyone else.

If you’re not a bully, you have no reason to fear having your name associated with your words, so no dangerous precedent is set. If you are a bully, on the other hand, then society benefits from forcing you to be exposed for what you are.

As Jenkins put it to Wired, “If you don’t like doxxing, I say, please, find a new way to keep these people back. The problem is you’ve all been doing nothing.”

This, ultimately, is the best way to achieve Popper’s goal of protecting a tolerant society from the intolerant. It is a method that violates no one’s rights, establishes no precedents that undermine our free society’s long-term health and (let’s be honest) delivers some long overdue justice against cowards who richly deserve it.

On the other hand, if we try to stop the far right by destroying the basic civil liberties on which our free society rests, then we risk being no better than William Roper from the classic Robert Bolt play “A Man for All Seasons.” When Roper declares that he would gladly remove all laws to stop the devil, Sir Thomas More replies, “And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”

Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and his work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

That was an excellent essay that restored my faith in mankind quite a bit. When I was a young man in high school, i remember many of the adults around me trashing the ACLU. I dont agree with everything the ACLU does, but i can support about 95% of it. Free Speech is the imperative. It is the over riding thing that benefits us all. Hollering Fire! in a crowded movie house is not covered because that is speech that can be causal to real damage to those in the theatre as they try to escape. But short of actually causing violence, there is no reason to stop anyone from speaking. 

Folks, the reasonable among us can easily see the crazies on the Right and Left are being seen by a larger and larger audience for who they are. 

[homersapien 11,357]

The philosphical question is a classic paradox which can be solved by abstaining from violence.  The use of violent opposition to the "alt right"  is obviously counter productive and simply mirrors the evil one is trying to oppose, at least within the context of a liberal democracy.

So let us hope that we preserve our liberal democracy and the forces of white nationalism never suborn our government and they have occasionally done in the past in different countries.  In such a case, violent opposition might become justified.  

So beware, if such a thing ever becomes possible in this country, it will present itself wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

[japantiger 4,051]

On 9/4/2017 at 8:28 PM, homersapien said:

The philosphical question is a classic paradox which can be solved by abstaining from violence.  The use of violent opposition to the "alt right"  is obviously counter productive and simply mirrors the evil one is trying to oppose, at least within the context of a liberal democracy.

So let us hope that we preserve our liberal democracy and the forces of white nationalism never suborn our government and they have occasionally done in the past in different countries.  In such a case, violent opposition might become justified.  

So beware, if such a thing ever becomes possible in this country, it will present itself wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

Well Homey, hopefully you democrats won't do that again.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Democrats marching in Georgia 1923

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Republicans in 2017

[aujeff11 6,243]

We all know that the KKK is bad. But that racist cotton vase display inside Hobby Lobby, that's the worst. This is 2017. Who do they think they are! 

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/womans_complaint_against_hobby.html

[LakeBum 187]

Sounds like we should just ban free speech since it is clear whenever someone says something, it offends someone else. Or maybe, just ban the free speech of those we disagree with.  Of course, I want to keep my free speech, but you need to give yours up. People always want to shut down those they disagree with, be it republican, democrat, white, black, christian, atheist, islamic, rich, poor, and on and on.  However, it might be much easier to ignore what others have to say.  There are already plenty of laws that prevent any kind of violence on each other.   

[TexasTiger 12,828]

3 hours ago, LakeBum said:

Sounds like we should just ban free speech since it is clear whenever someone says something, it offends someone else. Or maybe, just ban the free speech of those we disagree with.  Of course, I want to keep my free speech, but you need to give yours up. People always want to shut down those they disagree with, be it republican, democrat, white, black, christian, atheist, islamic, rich, poor, and on and on.  However, it might be much easier to ignore what others have to say.  There are already plenty of laws that prevent any kind of violence on each other.   

I don't want shut down free speech-- I just want folks to critically assess what is said. 

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I don't want shut down free speech-- I just want folks to critically assess what is said. 

Feed your own horse Brother Tex before talking about other folks horse starving 

[homersapien 11,357]

On 9/17/2017 at 10:32 PM, DKW 86 said:

Democrats marching in Georgia 1923

And what party did all those racist Democrats switch to after 1964 Donald?

 

[SaltyTiger 7,777]

On 9/18/2017 at 0:32 AM, TexasTiger said:

Republicans in 2017

really?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

53 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

really?

Context. What was I responding to?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

57 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And what party did all those racist Democrats switch to after 1964 Donald?

 

His history knowledge appears to end in 1963.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

58 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Feed your own horse Brother Tex before talking about other folks horse starving 

So you disagree with me? Ok. 

[AUDub 11,141]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And what party did all those racist Democrats switch to after 1964 Donald?

 

SOUTHERN STRATEGY

O

U

T

H

E

R

N

S

T

R

A

T

E

G

Y

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And what party did all those racist Democrats switch to after 1964?

 

Dixiecrats in 1968? Or are you trying to tell me all those Yellow Dog Democrat KKK members suddenly joined the Republican Party? They didnt. Yellow Dogs are Yellow Dogs exactly because the Republicans Freed Blacks. 

And i wont bite on the Donald insult. That is demonstrably false. I simply pointed out the truth. 

I dont like either party. It might not be long until we tear down monuments to both. FDR had a racist streak in him. He could have let blacks serve in the military equal to whites. He didnt. The Democrats formed the KKK. The Democrats in the KKK terrorized the nation for 100+ years. The Republicans built the National Park System. The Republicans under TR busted up the monopolies and trusts. I know you want to hate the Republicans, its the simple minded thing to do. But history will tell both sides of the story. The Northern Republicans and the Liberal Democrats voted in the CRA, and the Great Society. The Southern Democrats fought them tooth and nail. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Enough blame to go around. so lets pass it all around?

Every body get a share of the blame. I feel the Democrat KKK Members should by far and away get the most blame.

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 9/18/2017 at 0:32 AM, TexasTiger said:

Republicans in 2017

 

I know this is going to hurt..but...Who was more wrong? The Racist Democrats 1865-1970 who lynched blacks and burnt their homes and wrote the Jim Crow Laws and refused them the right to vote...Or a bunch of Thugs who want to throw fists at people a couple of weekends a year?

[TexasTiger 12,828]

12 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I know this is going to hurt..but...Who was more wrong? The Racist Democrats 1865-1970 who lynched blacks and burnt their homes and wrote the Jim Crow Laws and refused them the right to vote...Or a bunch of Thugs who want to throw fists at people a couple of weekends a year?

The racists were/are wrong in every era.

[AUDub 11,141]

8 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Actually that was the 70s, not the 60s.

Not really. The seeds were sown by Goldwater, whose record of voting against anti-racism helped him to win 5 states in the deep south for the Republicans, which was unprecedented. Nixon implemented this strategy in 68, but Wallace was running on an explicitly segregationist platform and took the south. 72 was when he dunked it home. 

[AUDub 11,141]

50 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Dixiecrats in 1968? Or are you trying to tell me all those Yellow Dog Democrat KKK members suddenly joined the Republican Party? They didnt. Yellow Dogs are Yellow Dogs exactly because the Republicans Freed Blacks. 

And i wont bite on the Donald insult. That is demonstrably false. I simply pointed out the truth. 

I dont like either party. It might not be long until we tear down monuments to both. FDR had a racist streak in him. He could have let blacks serve in the military equal to whites. He didnt. The Democrats formed the KKK. The Democrats in the KKK terrorized the nation for 100+ years. The Republicans built the National Park System. The Republicans under TR busted up the monopolies and trusts. I know you want to hate the Republicans, its the simple minded thing to do. But history will tell both sides of the story. The Northern Republicans and the Liberal Democrats voted in the CRA, and the Great Society. The Southern Democrats fought them tooth and nail. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Dixiecrat fallacy.

[homersapien 11,357]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Dixiecrats in 1968? Or are you trying to tell me all those Yellow Dog Democrat KKK members suddenly joined the Republican Party? They didnt. Yellow Dogs are Yellow Dogs exactly because the Republicans Freed Blacks. 

And i wont bite on the Donald insult. That is demonstrably false. I simply pointed out the truth. 

I dont like either party. It might not be long until we tear down monuments to both. FDR had a racist streak in him. He could have let blacks serve in the military equal to whites. He didnt. The Democrats formed the KKK. The Democrats in the KKK terrorized the nation for 100+ years. The Republicans built the National Park System. The Republicans under TR busted up the monopolies and trusts. I know you want to hate the Republicans, its the simple minded thing to do. But history will tell both sides of the story. The Northern Republicans and the Liberal Democrats voted in the CRA, and the Great Society. The Southern Democrats fought them tooth and nail. 

Jeeeeeze. 

Obviously I touched a sore spot. Of some sort.

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

No, we are simply discussing historical facts.

Here is Democrat George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door denying blacks the rights to go to UAT. Auburn was already integrating at this point. 

This picture demonstrates just how silly modern Democrats are. It appeared on Chris Hayes' All In 2-3 years ago Do you think for one second they dont know that Wallace, one of the most Legendary figures in the Democrat Party, a man that ran for President fairly successfully 2X wasnt known as a Democrat? Oh hell no.! He was a Democrat's Democrat. He was fiercely loyal to the Democrat Party up until his death in the 1990s. It didnt end in 1964...not by a long shot. 

Yellow Dog Democrat

Someone (generally from the South) who would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat. Alternately, someone who would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican. The term probably dates back to the 19th century and gained national recognition in the 1928 Presidential election. Today, used most often as a term of approval or self-identification.

My daddy was a yellow dog Democrat and my granddaddy was a yellow dog Democrat — I’ll never vote Republican.

 

I built a website for a local Democrat in 2008, County Commissioner, in N AL. He frankly told me that in his eyes, half of the Alabama Democratic Base today, roughly 20% of the Voting Electorate, was YDD. Dont tell me that they are not prevalent even today.

[DKW 86 7,419]

By the way, the Democrats havent been this upset since the Republicans took away their slaves. 

KKK was the First Resistance! 

 

 

ssssshhhhhh i am trolling yall and you need to take this history lesson in good clean EDUCATIVE FUN....

As is true in American History, by far and away the worst Racial Atrocities lynchings, Cross burnings, whipping, shootings, were done by members of the Democrat Party over a period of 120 or so years. That is simply fact. We live in a state that ranks 49th in Education for the last 150 years largely because we were run into the ground by the ADP for decades. I am a member of the ARDC. A Reform Branch of the ADP trying to get the dead wood out of state politics. This state didnt just start to suck when the Republicans took over in the 1990s. The Democrats had their/our hands in it for 120 years previously.