The conspiracy to overturn the 1st Amendment

[Saggy]

This conspiracy has been waged for 30+ years by the ADL, as exemplified by these documents ....

'Hate Crime Laws'
https://web.archive.org/web/20040205...rime/print.asp
and
'Racists. Bigots, and the Law on the Internet'
https://web.archive.org/web/20040411...rnet/print.asp

The conspiracy is now open, explicit, and pervasive, e.g. see

'Biden state media appointee advocated using propaganda against Americans and ‘rethinking’ First Amendment'
https://thegrayzone.com/2020/11/11/r...a-usagm-biden/

Here is a good example of how it works ...

'Abby Martin's Lawsuit'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTCQc6aRIiY&t=315s


The Trump administration is on board ....

'Executive Order Banning Antisemitism'
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...anti-semitism/

It's really quite remarkable. A few years ago the internet gave us the illusion that we really did have free speech in the US. But now we see that the free speech illusion could only be maintained as long as big money had control of the media.

[smartcooky]

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 12.

Curbing harmful speech is not overturning 1A, its making 1A work for the vast majority.

Frankly, I'd like to see public Holocaust denial illegal - to become a criminal offence to either speak publicly, or to publish any media, or to assist in publishing any media that promotes Holocaust denial. That means prosecuting people like David Irving, Nick Griffin, Robert Faurisson, Albert Szabo, Istvan Gorkos, Dariusz Ratajczak (and Ernst Zündel if he wasn't dead). That means prosecuting the owners of Facebook and YouTube and other media outlets if they allow new pages to be created and videos to be uploaded and not immediately take them down .

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Frankly, I'd like to see public Holocaust denial illegal - to become a criminal offence to either speak publicly, or to publish any media, or to assist in publishing any media that promotes Holocaust denial.

Then you don't believe in free speech.

[threadworm]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 12.

Curbing harmful speech is not overturning 1A, its making 1A work for the vast majority.

Frankly, I'd like to see public Holocaust denial illegal - to become a criminal offence to either speak publicly, or to publish any media, or to assist in publishing any media that promotes Holocaust denial. That means prosecuting people like David Irving, Nick Griffin, Robert Faurisson, Albert Szabo, Istvan Gorkos, Dariusz Ratajczak (and Ernst Zündel if he wasn't dead). That means prosecuting the owners of Facebook and YouTube and other media outlets if they allow new pages to be created and videos to be uploaded and not immediately take them down .

Personally, I like to think fascist nazi filth should be allowed to post their diseased ideology, because then we can see exactly where they are and who they are. Free speech is then about pointing out who the fascists are so that they can be rightly and publicly vilified for being pointless wastes of oxygen, rather than listening to whining racist scum claiming they are being badly done to.

[Thermal]

I love a good conspiracy! Does this one have a shadowy cabal of cannibal Satanists, or is it more like the popular kids are spreading rumors about you? I hate that kind.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Then you don't believe in free speech.

I absolutely do not believe in free speech. Just like I do not believe in universal suffrage.

Allowing both of the above to be pretty much unrestricted causes more harm than good.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Then you don't believe in free speech.

There is no absolute free speech without consequence, and you know this.

Racial and religious vilification laws are fine by me. You can still say what you want about racial groups etc in Australia. You can advocate death to them in public. But there is a very good chance you will end up being arrested.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Then you don't believe in free speech.

If you support the right of people to promote hate speech, then you support people who promote hate speech and agree with what they say.

(See how that works?)

I do believe in free speech, I don't believe in hate speech, or speech that does harm to people based on their religion, race, skin colour or ethnicity, or speech that incites violence.

Germany has done what I proposed, they did it in 35 years ago in 1985. Has it led to wider banning of other speech? No, it hasn't. Germany still has neo-Nazis, but the Holocaust deniers are muzzled.

In fact, 20 countries have laws either expressly forbidding Holocaust denial (highlighted in red) or encompassing H denial under the auspices of other hate speech crimes; Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Switzerland.

I am ashamed to say that my country is not among them.

Russia is the only country among them whose rights to free speech are dubious, and they were already that way anyway when Putin signed Holocaust denial into Law in 2014

[lionking]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

I absolutely do not believe in free speech. Just like I do not believe in universal suffrage.

Allowing both of the above to be pretty much unrestricted causes more harm than good.

I need you to explain that.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If you support the right of people to promote hate speech, then you support people who promote hate speech and agree with what they say.

(See how that works?).

<snipped for focus>

It really doesn't. Free speech can't possibly mean only speech you support or agree with. That's what 'free' is all about; to say things without fear of censure by those who don't support or agree with it.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If you support the right of people to promote hate speech, then you support people who promote hate speech and agree with what they say.

No.

Shorn of emotional baggage, free speech is about the promulgation of ideas. "Hate Speech" is about governments censoring ideas they don't like. Maybe it's easier to understand that by imagining e.g. what Islamic governments would designate as "Hate Speech".

Truth doesn't enter into it, as that would require someone to designate what's true and what isn't for the rest of us. I wouldn't trust any government with that power.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by lionking

I need you to explain that.

Sure. I do not believe allowing (practically) every adult to have the right to vote is a good idea.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by threadworm

Personally, I like to think fascist nazi filth should be allowed to post their diseased ideology, because then we can see exactly where they are and who they are. Free speech is then about pointing out who the fascists are so that they can be rightly and publicly vilified for being pointless wastes of oxygen, rather than listening to whining racist scum claiming they are being badly done to.

There was a sitcom in the mid-1990s in which the main character was the manager of a bus station. There was an episode in which he refused to rent a bus to a group of Neo-Nazis who were planning a big public outing to celebrate Hitler's birthday. The Jewish attorney who helped them sue the bus company argued that it was better for them to be out in the open where people could see them and laugh at them, instead of festering and growing in dark corners like mold.
We've spent the last several years seeing that there are a lot of people who won't laugh, but will instead be emboldened by seeing people who share their beliefs loudly expressing them.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

[<polite snip>
We've spent the last several years seeing that there are a lot of people who won't laugh, but will instead be emboldened by seeing people who share their beliefs loudly expressing them.

This.

Every book, every video, every Facebook page, every newspaper article in which these scumbags are allowed to air their vile rhetoric, runs the risk of turning people towards their cause. Its the same way that Islamic extremists radicalize weak-minded people so that they willingly strap on a bomb vest and blow up a school bus.

In America, and in other countries, including my own, we have seen attacks on synagogues, churches and mosques - places of worship. These have been a direct result of allowing speakers of hate to promote their cause, the shooters and killers were radicalised by what they read and heard and watched.

I hope the The Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York has tight security... its only a matter of time!

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Then you don't believe in free speech.

Holocaust denial is not a matter about free speech. It is more to do with unconscionable conduct as bad people seek donations or commercial sales for books or materials they know are not true, with the knowledge it is causing harm.

Bradley Smith would simply release a pamphlet containing already debunked facts and then seek donations and sales.

Nor does holocaust denial suffer a loss of free speech from being banned by private entities, like Facebook, You Tube and so on. It has its own social media platforms, such as CODOH and Stormfront.

If you believe you have the right to yell "******" at black people going about their daily business, then I guess you would extend Holocaust Denial to your definition of free speech.

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Holocaust denial is not a matter about free speech.

Of course it is. It's no different than e.g. Flat-Earthism in the sense that it doesn't comport to reality, but I wouldn't ban Flat-Earthism either. They're both ideas and what people do as a consequence of being exposed to those ideas is not relevant. The right to disagree is fundamental in a free society.

I'm not a complete absolutist either since I believe direct incitement to violence and e.g. slander should remain exceptions, and the US Supreme Court agrees with me on this. The US doesn't need hate speech laws.

Ideas and the free promulgation of them is different than direct incitement

Examples:

"I think homosexuality is sinful and God will condemn all sinners to eternal Hell!" -- Clearly free speech, but probably "Hate Speech" in many European countries today.

"Let's go and kill us some homos for God today!" -- Direct incitement to violence and not free speech.

I prefer to be on the side of Voltaire and Christopher Hitchens when it comes to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

....... since I believe direct incitement to violence and e.g. slander should remain exceptions, and the US Supreme Court agrees with me on this. The US doesn't need hate speech laws.

Eric Hunt
A San Francisco jury found a troubled New Jersey man guilty of a felony hate crime charge of false imprisonment on Monday while clearing him of five other felonies stemming from a bizarre encounter in which he pulled Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel out of a hotel elevator last year.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...el-3276032.php


Eric Hunt was the leading, poster boy for CODOH and used by to post debunked stories about holocaust denial and raise money.

[Bubba]

Quote:

Posted by smartcooky

If you support the right of people to promote hate speech, then you support people who promote hate speech and agree with what they say.

Wrong. D-

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

No.

Shorn of emotional baggage, free speech is about the promulgation of ideas. "Hate Speech" is about governments censoring ideas they don't like. Maybe it's easier to understand that by imagining e.g. what Islamic governments would designate as "Hate Speech".

Truth doesn't enter into it, as that would require someone to designate what's true and what isn't for the rest of us. I wouldn't trust any government with that power.

Correct. A+

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Saggy

A few years ago the internet gave us the illusion that we really did have free speech in the US. But now we see that the free speech illusion could only be maintained as long as big money had control of the media.

No. You're all confused.

Free speech is asking "big money" to control the media.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Wrong. D-

Hint: you might try NOT ignoring what I was replying to and NOT clipping out the part of my post that might have allowed you to understand the meaning of what I posted..

Your comprehension skills E-

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Hint: you might try NOT ignoring what I was replying to and NOT clipping out the part of my post that might have allowed you to understand the meaning of what I posted..

Your comprehension skills E-

Wrong

F

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Hint: you might try NOT ignoring what I was replying to and NOT clipping out the part of my post that might have allowed you to understand the meaning of what I posted..

Your comprehension skills E-

Does it really matter where speech is either free, or it is not free?

[Bubba]

Is this the first such thread?

It might be "the only conversation"


Why they named it *the first amendment* ???

[Bubba]

Restricting speech is a very slippery slope.

As a means to, say,* prevent all hell from breaking loose, what is an alternative to restricting speech ?

Quote by smartcooky:

* "I hope the The Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York has tight security... its only a matter of time!"

- Smartcooky

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Restricting speech is a very slippery slope.

As a means to, say,* prevent all hell from breaking loose, what is an alternative to restricting speech ?

Quote by smartcooky:

* "I hope the The Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York has tight security... its only a matter of time!"

- Smartcooky

how are you going to enforce that media companies safeguard free speech?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

how are you going to enforce that media companies safeguard free speech?

Good question. Got any ideas??

Did they ever?? If so, go back there and start over. But I doubt it ever was so.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Good question. Got any ideas??

Did they ever?? If so, go back there and start over. But I doubt it ever was so.

well, do you think the State has the right to force companies to give everyone a platform, even if that would not be in their economic interest?
Is the state going to compensate the company for lost advertiser revenue?

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

well, do you think the State has the right to force companies to give everyone a platform, even if that would not be in their economic interest?
Is the state going to compensate the company for lost advertiser revenue?

Should Zucky and Dorsey obey the law??

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Should Zucky and Dorsey obey the law??

It is not the law that companies need to protect Free Speech.
Neither is it the law that the State must protect free speech - that is the misconception here.

The State is not allowed to violate Free Speech itself ... which is no the same as making sure that on one else is doing it, either.

You seem to want laws that make all media part of the state when it comes to rules of Free Speech.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Should Zucky and Dorsey obey the law??

What Law? Chapter and verse Bubba, tell us the statute.

[Hlafordlaes]

Law and government are artifacts of reasoning, not science. They are bodies of formal opinion. To be as reliable and predictable as possible -- assuming one wishes to reduce bias, error and fraud -- the rules and field of play, in design and execution, must be reasonably logical and related to any grounding assumptions or principles. Otherwise, the system is easily gamed, apart from not providing the outcomes one would expect.

To my point: Speech that attacks equal voice in making and standing before the law seeks to undermine the basis upon which not only voice relies, but all political rights, extended on the basis of that equality. That speech is hate speech, and, IMO, can be prohibited in public political discourse and result in barring any candidate for any office, even dogcatcher, let alone, say, Pressie for Life.

I'd say the same for any religion denying the religious freedom of others or the right of adherents to leave; it should lose it's protection under the law, be it a preacher, denomination, or the entire faith. Otherwise, WTF?

And so on.

[Saggy]

As expected, the concept of free speech has elicited a debate among the SI regulars. I am interested in looking at who is behind the efforts to restrict free speech in the US, the conspiracy if you will, and from my OP we see that the ADL has been at it for 30+ years. And, now they are pretty much in the catbird seat, working together with my alma mater, UC Berkeley, formerly home of the free speech movement, to restrict speech on the internet, see
'The Online Hate Index' ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lULmie51-pU

No doubt the Jews, who have been hated and expelled from hundreds of countries, are experts on hate ... see
'Expulsions and exoduses of Jews'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expuls...oduses_of_Jews

However, before turning control of the internet over to the ADL, perhaps we should try to understand why the Jews have been universally hated. There is a long article on the history of antisemitism on wiki, see
'History of Antisemitism'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism
However, I think it should be taken with a grain of salt, in it we read ...
"The first clear examples of anti-Jewish sentiment can be traced back to Alexandria in the 3rd century BCE."
that seems preposterous on its face as the Jews had been slaughtering people in the middle east for hundreds of years prior to that period.

Which brings me to a video that might shed some light on the subject, see
'NOAHIDE LAWS - WHY DO JEWS WANT TO KILL EVERYONE ELSE?'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/94Kxl8IgDv1C/
which begins with a quote from the Bible ...
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
and includes further explication of the relation between Jews and non-Jews today by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, which according to the rabbi is that Jews should kill non-Jews because of 'all the detestable things they do'.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Saggy

deleted

The same rumbling incoherent rant links you've posted here before.

Why would you think this would be of any value?

[sackett]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

I absolutely do not believe in free speech. Just like I do not believe in universal suffrage.

Allowing both of the above to be pretty much unrestricted causes more harm than good.

Start a thread on the above, specifically your views on suffrage. Might be less tiresome than these periodic wrangles over unfree speech.

[MarkCorrigan]

Yes yes, Jews bad. Do you seriously not have anything better to do with your time saggy? Instead of what could be a potentially interesting discussion on free speech and hate speech you descended directly into blaming the Jews for antisemitism. It's just sad.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Yes yes, Jews bad. Do you seriously not have anything better to do with your time saggy? Instead of what could be a potentially interesting discussion on free speech and hate speech you defended directly into blaming the Jews for antisemitism. It's just sad.

I blame Christianity for anti-semitism. After all, the "Jews bad" perception was created by their 2000+ year old, violent, hate-filled book that blames the Jews for a multitude of vile and nasty things that they were never ever responsible for. You can draw a direct, unbroken line between the fiction of the bible (the claim that Pilate and Caiaphas were responsible for the crucifixion of their alleged spiritual leader) and the Holocaust.

[Hlafordlaes]

Serious thread? Bah, humbug. What a waste of my time. Could've been watching paint dry.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by The Great Zagnaza

]how are you going to enforce that media companies safeguard free speech?

Originally Posted by Bubba

Good question. Got any ideas??

Well Bubba, has it occurred to you that both legislation and court made law has already evolved to do exactly that?

Can a newspaper have the free speech right to incite a riot under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)? What rights does that same newspaper retain?

How do you think defamation laws interact with the US Constitution?

Write us a little summary report so we can understand your knowledge on this?

[Pacal]

I, actually, support the right of Holocaust Deniers to free speech. That is the right to spread their crap without government suppression. Why?

Well because I think that if I am really in favour of free speech I am in favour of allowing without government suppression speech I despise and yes I despise Holocaust Denial.

Among the reasons is that I do not want to give Holocaust Deniers the mantle of Martyrs for free speech. It gives them utterly undeserved publicity.

It interesting to note that Deborah Lipstadt author of Denying the Holocaust and target of David Irving, Holocaust Denier, in a libel suit that he lost, is not in favour of laws criminalizing Holocaust Denial.

Of course I do not believe that Holocaust Deniers are entitled to a platform, neither do I think that Holocaust Deniers should in any way be immune from the ridicule and utter contempt they deserve.

Frankly to be a Holocaust Denier is to embrace being a vile human being.

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I blame Christianity for anti-semitism. After all, the "Jews bad" perception was created by their 2000+ year old, violent, hate-filled book that blames the Jews for a multitude of vile and nasty things that they were never ever responsible for. You can draw a direct, unbroken line between the fiction of the bible (the claim that Pilate and Caiaphas were responsible for the crucifixion of their alleged spiritual leader) and the Holocaust.

Very much disagree. Antisemitism pre-dated Christianity, and the early Christians WERE Jews.

The antisemitism that emerged in the texts and traditions within Christianity was just taken absorbed by the gentile groups that took up the clt in it's early days.