Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 204 posts

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#151

Post by ameister14 »

putsteadywere wrote: post #140
ameister14 wrote: post #137

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is i…

I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate. A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...

None of those people are currently serving in any capacity in Congress and almost all of them are dead. I don't deny that the KKK was big in the US and had political power in 1926.

Also, The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S. That's a far cry from Austria and Germany.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#152

Post by ameister14 »

kenjackson wrote: post #146
derping69 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger issue I see is that by taking away these people's ability to discuss their beliefs they are going to be further radicalized. If they don't believe they can change things peacefully through protest they will become violent. That's the main reason I don't agree with the banning of daily stormer and google banning Gab.ai from the play store. They are only further enforcing these people's beliefs that the powe…

So should we instead replace NBC and make it the Daily Stormer network so they feel that the powers to be aren't against them? No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs, they just can't do it with the support of certain private companies. In the same way, if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't allow them to host an informal "Daily Stormer Night" at my restaurant. I shouldn't be forced to having to have them use…

>No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs...

A lot of people are saying that.

Here's where it gets interesting. If you leased an apartment, could your landlord evict you for for hosting dinners in support of the KKK? That's more similar to what happened with the hosting and service provider denials.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#153

Post by pfg »

putsteadywere wrote: post #140
ameister14 wrote: post #137

I think we should examine the effectiveness of bans on speech r.e. limitation of the spread of an ideology. For example, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (not a group with an incentive to deflate numbers), at its peak the National Alliance had 1,200 members. All together, there are a few thousand active Neo-Nazis in the United States. In contrast, let's take 2 countries where advocating Nazi ideology is i…

I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate. A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...

In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder to label or quantify that group.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#154

Post by ameister14 »

pfg wrote: post #153
putsteadywere wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate. A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United...

In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder to label or quantify that group.

Which is why I used active members and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as voting numbers.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#155

Post by pfg »

ameister14 wrote: post #154
pfg wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to this, comparing Austria and Germany, which both are multi-party systems, to a two-party system like the United States is problematic in this context. A significant chunk of the GOP and their voters likely support the same policies that the Freedom Party or the NPD support, but it's much harder to label or quantify that group.

Which is why I used active members and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as voting numbers.

These numbers aren't comparable. You're equating membership of an actual Nazi group with being a member of a far-right party with historical ties to Nazis. A much more apt comparison to these parties would be to look at members of the GOP who support far-right policies, but that's hard to quantify.

FWIW, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether laws banning Nazi speech have a large impact on the number of people supporting that ideology. I don't think they increase the number of Nazis, and it makes sense to keep them around given the historical context of countries like Austria and Germany even if they don't have an impact on that number.

I do think you're quite far off the mark if you think less than 0.001% of the U.S. population identifies with Nazi ideology, while it's something like 1% for Austria and Germany.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#156

Post by kenjackson »

ameister14 wrote: post #152
kenjackson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we instead replace NBC and make it the Daily Stormer network so they feel that the powers to be aren't against them? No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs, they just can't do it with the support of certain private companies. In the same way, if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't allow them to host an informal "Daily Stormer Night" at my restaurant. I shouldn't be forced to having to have them use…

>No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs... A lot of people are saying that. Here's where it gets interesting. If you leased an apartment, could your landlord evict you for for hosting dinners in support of the KKK? That's more similar to what happened with the hosting and service provider denials.

This depends on the terms of the lease. That seems completely non-controversial to me. There's a bunch of stuff in my lease that I couldn't do, which are perfectly legal in many other contexts (smoke inside, have a dog, have big parties, etc...). Likewise, a KKK friendly lease would also be legal and honestly I don't think you'd have a hard time finding people who would be willing to have you.

And I've yet to find someone who has said they can't discuss their beliefs. They just don't get "our" support to do it.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#157

Post by ameister14 »

pfg wrote: post #155
ameister14 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why I used active members and the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as voting numbers.

These numbers aren't comparable. You're equating membership of an actual Nazi group with being a member of a far-right party with historical ties to Nazis. A much more apt comparison to these parties would be to look at members of the GOP who support far-right policies, but that's hard to quantify. FWIW, I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether laws banning Nazi speech have a large impact on the number o…

I don't think the GOP/NDP comparison is apt, because Germany attempted to ban the NDP completely and the NDP works continuously with literal Nazis. If the KKK had a political party of its own, that would be comparable. There are only a few thousand members of the KKK left, though, so that is unlikely to occur.

I think that for the same percentage to identify with Nazi ideology it would require millions of people to be so comfortable with it that they would openly give Nazi affiliated parties their support.

I don't think millions of people support Neo-Nazis in the US.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#158

Post by ameister14 »

kenjackson wrote: post #156
ameister14 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs... A lot of people are saying that. Here's where it gets interesting. If you leased an apartment, could your landlord evict you for for hosting dinners in support of the KKK? That's more similar to what happened with the hosting and service provider denials.

This depends on the terms of the lease. That seems completely non-controversial to me. There's a bunch of stuff in my lease that I couldn't do, which are perfectly legal in many other contexts (smoke inside, have a dog, have big parties, etc...). Likewise, a KKK friendly lease would also be legal and honestly I don't think you'd have a hard time finding people who would be willing to have you. And I've yet to find so…

So it's non-controversial for your landlord to evict you because they don't like your dinner guests?

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#159

Post by dragonwriter »

ameister14 wrote: post #152
kenjackson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we instead replace NBC and make it the Daily Stormer network so they feel that the powers to be aren't against them? No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs, they just can't do it with the support of certain private companies. In the same way, if I owned a restaurant, I wouldn't allow them to host an informal "Daily Stormer Night" at my restaurant. I shouldn't be forced to having to have them use…

>No one is saying they can't discuss their beliefs... A lot of people are saying that. Here's where it gets interesting. If you leased an apartment, could your landlord evict you for for hosting dinners in support of the KKK? That's more similar to what happened with the hosting and service provider denials.

Housing law has special sets of protection distinct from even the law governing general public accommodations, so (without an argument that the specific service is be very much like housing), it's probably not the most reasonable analogy to use.

Re: Fighting Neo-Nazis and the Future of Free Expression

#160

Post by stillhere »

infinite8s wrote: post #101
Overtonwindow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One more quote because I think it sums things up very well: "Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t."

Although the only thing actually protected by the First Amendment is protection against censorship of speech by the government. Private commercial enterprises can do what they want (since technically you should be able to move to a competitor).

What happens when corporations have more power and influence than the government? Furthermore, what happens when the government do not protect free speech themselves, which is exactly what happened in Charlottesville? The protesters had a permit to be there, the legal right, but the permit was revoked once the protest began. The police did not protect the protesters and funneled them straight into the violent mob. It is a frightening situation where there is literally no place for dissenting viewpoints.
Post reply on HN