To be honest, the whole idea of protected vs. non-protected classes makes me uncomfortable. Yes, there are some things that force you to compromise your ideals in order to make a workable system, but it's a hack, not a proper solution.
In a democracy, the majority has limitless power. They can vote to oppress or kill the minority, which survives only due to the majority's good will and whim. Democracy is the angry mob. 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner', goes a saying.
The solution is constitutional democracy, which includes rules protecting the minority, via civil rights. In the U.S., these rules are the Bill of Rights. The rule of law also is essential.
But it's very clear that even those rights and laws are not sufficient: In the U.S., slavery, segregation, lynchings of blacks, and oppression of other politically vulnerable groups, including women and LGBTQ, has continued in varying degrees for over 200 years despite the Bill of Rights and rule of law.
The politically vulnerable groups - the groups the majority can oppress and kill and destroy - need additional protection. (That's why when people try to make some logical inference that oppression of white males is the same thing, they miss the core factor: White males are not politically vulnerable to the majority;, they are the majority (in terms of power); a quick look at a group photo of the people in power in every domain of American and European life will show you that.
The only reason to exclude currently-powerful people from basic protections (rather than making basic protections universal) is if you think that one day, those currently-powerful people will be vulnerable enough to need them. And further, that at that point, they don't deserve to be protected in the manner that currently vulnerable people deserve to be protected.
Remember the last time that popular sentiment regarded a group of rich, influential people as not needing those should-be-universal protections because of their privileged position? And then decided that this group was the cause of all their problems? Let's not let that happen again.
This is a nitpick but an important one: the U.S. isn’t a constitutional democracy.
It’s a constitutional republic. And there is a difference.
As far as protected classes; the U.S. Constitution makes each individual a protected class. The protection of individual liberty is the cornerstone of the United States. (Or at least it was.)
This idea that some groups need more protection is ludicrous. We are saying that some people are less equal than others. What is needed is a consistent and impartial application of the law – which, granted, was not always the case. But, the philosophical concept of protected class goes against the concept of equality.
Committing a crime against a gay person IS A CRIME. That exact same crime against a non gay person IS A CRIME. The idea that either one of those should be punished differently is more Animal Farm than US Constitution.
This idea of the thought police is obscene and the very opposite of John Locke.
A man should not be punished for thoughts. A man should not be punished because of his motivations. A man should only be punished for his actions.
That is an ideal, maybe even one that I support, but after over 200 years and overwhelming evidence, you must concede that it does not work in practice.
> A man should not be punished because of his motivations. A man should only be punished for his actions.
To nitpick a little: The law absolutely looks at motivations. For example, pre-meditated murder (1st degree murder) is a worse crime than non-pre-meditated murder (2nd degree), which is worse than unintentional murder (3rd degree).
Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute. "US federal law doesn't precisely reflect your moral standpoint" isn't a very good argument against a belief.
All of civilization has been about limiting specific individual freedoms in order to guarantee others to the collective.
Even in the US, freedom of speech is not unlimited. Perhaps we're finally learning that the freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
It's about time we lost our naivety. Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.
Naivety is thinking you can open the Pandora's box of government limiting speech based on what is popularly acceptable in an emotional moment, and not eventually having any speech against government or incumbent politicians or ideas eventually labeled in the future as hate speech and banned.
The reason you don't go down the path of Europe in this regard is because Europeans are already losing representation, and democracy fails when people aren't free to speak their minds and express their ideas, love it or hate it. That's how a truly free society actually works.
As a European, I feel well-represented. Whatever that means.
And even though I happen to life in a country where anybody waving a swastika in the last 70 years went to jail, I can still criticise the Government in any way I want.
> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test. Do you really want to set the standard that if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint? I guarantee you this won't play out how you want.
> Our European brethren learned this lesson during WWII.
The US has strong protections on free speech and other fundamental rights because "our European brethren" didn't, and therefore treated their colonies so poorly as to almost universally engender armed insurrection. Nothing much changed in this regard then or in WWII, so I'm not really sure what "lesson" you think you're referring to; that Germany should have more aggressively censored anti-incumbent sentiment in the aftermath of WWI? Yes, what a lovely lesson.
>> freedom from discrimination trumps the freedom to preach discrimination.
> Essentially any political viewpoint can be described in such a way as to fail this test.
I think it's an essential question about where to draw the line. Obviously there must be limits to speech: You can't shout 'kill all the X' to a group of people with baseball bats threatening a group of X (or commit slander or yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.). Generally, it's almost always hard to find a clear, simple rule that applies effectively in all cases of reality - morality and law are like algorithms in that respect. That's why we have judges, juries, and sophisticated laws.
But here's a proposed, relatively functional solution that is simple: Draw the line at intolerance - the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance itself. A few reasons: 1) Intolerance is a parasite on the rule of tolerance and free speech; it tries to stop others from having those rights. 2) It violates the basic social contract: You tolerate and respect me, and I'll do the same for you. If you break that contract, why should I keep tolerating you? 3) Look up the "Paradox of tolerance".
> if the execution of a viewpoint has a negative impact on some group, it's OK to use violence against anyone who holds that viewpoint
> Free speech, freedom of conscience, and non-discrimination are moral principles that go beyond US federal statute.
What does this even mean? Free speech is severely limited to the point that I can be fined for singing most songs in a public place. What I can say to or about people is limited, and I can be charged with various crimes based on the content of that speech. What I say to a child can be interpreted as abuse just based on its explicitness. In many circumstances, I'm not allowed to tell anyone any significant news about what's going on within a company that I work for or have any connection to, for fear that they might profit.
"Free speech" is about the government restraining people from political speech, and even that's been heavily restricted at different times - currently speech can be interpreted as giving material support to terrorists, conceivably opening one up for indefinite detention. We've jailed people for treason for anti-war speech.
Free speech is not about anybody being forced to help you say whatever you want to say. You can't just literally translate the phrase, it's a shorthand. If you want to fight for businesses losing control of their platform in proportion to their size, I'd be glad to support you. Expropriate and renationalize, I say. If Cloudflare is a public utility, I'd demand that Nazis have the opportunity to use it as freely as everyone else.
As for the rest, 1) there's no indication that Cloudflare can prevent them from thinking what they would like, and 2) non-discrimination is not a moral principle; if we didn't discriminate, we wouldn't need more than one word, or to learn our left from our right. Our norms are against certain types of discrimination, not the basic idea of distinguishing between things. There are differences between Nazis and Jews, for example. If we couldn't see them, we wouldn't be able to understand why some people wanted to murder other people, or discriminate accordingly when deciding who we should do business with.
Nazism is not a political position, it is a death cult. Nazis are murderers or would-be murderers who want me and everyone I love or care about dead. They are actively conspiring to make that a reality, sometimes achieving some fraction of it. Incitement to mass murder is not and should never be protected speech.
They are also actively conspiring to eliminate free speech, freedom of conscience and non-discrimination. Protecting the direct efforts to destroy those moral principles, in the name of preserving them, is an obvious contradiction and an obvious failure to uphold those values.
None of this is hypothetical or theoretical. We know what happened the last time they achieved real power. We know that they have escalated their violence as they have gained allies in power today.
We should protect the free exchange of ideas. We should not protect or give a platform to a conspiracy to mass murder.
Free speech is largely an American thing. You may believe it's universal, but you would be wrong.
It's not uncommon for religious people to think that the principles of their religion are so obvious and universal.
This seems like a very similar attitude. But really, you're just used to it. That's all.
As a person who was not born into western culture, I find the concept sort of weird in some way. Although I do accept it as a given in western cultures, I can't see it as either obvious nor universal.
Free speech is not carte blanche to invite violence or call for a genocide. Please watch the recent vice documentary to hear what and how the Charlottesville white supremacists prepared for. It's truly vile and genocidal.
If you want to see a society who has been much more firm holding against racist nonsense, see Germany who has legislated against Nazi symbols and propoganda. Do you see why allowing indimidation and hateful violence run rampant is a bad idea?
What you're saying is true - freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are well recognized, narrow exceptions to the First Amendment.
That said, Schenck is an awful example of them, considering:
- it does not advance your argument at all - Schenck was an anti-war protester who was trying to distribute flyers. Where's the "impinging on safety or rights of another citizen" there?
- it has been rejected and abandoned as a doctrine, most notably via Brandenburg vs Ohio.
If you get what I'm saying - comparing two well-known instances from different parts of the political spectrum where businesses try and refuse custom for ideological reasons - why are you pretending I'm comparing gay people to neo-Nazis?
Because you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay. I’m not talking about denying service. I’m saying one of them did not choose to be what they are.
No one is comparing gay people with neo-nazis or saying there is some equivalence, they were just two very different examples to illustrate a point. In fact, what makes it such a good illustration is how different they are from each other.
Let me change it to an example more dear to my own heart:
> Don't wanna hire old programmers or host pro-Nazi sites? Don't start a business serving the public then.
I certainly didn't choose to be an old programmer! It seems to have just happened, maybe by some law of nature. But I'm not offended by being mentioned in the same sentence with pro-Nazi sites. It's pretty obvious that no comparison is being made between the two.
No comparison is being made but they are being equated as two of the same types of "discrimination." They are very different in that one group, Nazis, are most notably known for their discrimination against others (e.g., a choice).
What if neo nazis get rebranded under some other name? They'd still be discriminating against others but hey at least they are no longer neo nazis, right?
I don't know how that has to do with anything. A name is just a label we apply to concepts. A discriminatory group is still in the wrong in my opinion.
> Because you choose to be a neo nazi, you don’t choose to be gay.
I agree with you, but many people do not, making it a political statement. Things get very complicated as soon as you abandon the bright line test of "you must serve the whole public."
But the religious groups are a protected class. Religion is something you choose. By that logic, it would be possible to discriminate against "Christians", "Muslims", etc.
The difference is the people of Colorado through their elected representatives included gays in an anti-discrimination law. Here in Georgia, the bakers would get an medal from the legislature.
Right, the distinction is that neo-Nazi's are bad -- hateful, intolerant, divisive, problematic or however you want to put it. I'm uncomfortable saying that it's okay to do these things to the bad guys, even when it's obvious, because in an alternate universe it might be obvious that gays marrying is hateful toward Christians and intolerant of their sacred rituals.
Nobody fought and won war---to the conclusion of unconditional surrender---against an army and ideology of the LGBT community.
Nazism didn't go through some kind of Martin Luther style academic and cultural reformation in the last 80 years. Neo-Nazis are the same as the original Nazis. They have the same ideology & the same ambitions. They're literally incompatible with Western liberalism & enlightenment.
Neo-Nazis are just late-stage Third Reich acolytes, sympathizers, and insurrectionists. They're still trying to fight a war that they lost to terms of unconditional surrender. It's frankly shocking that they're given the deference of being just yet another political voice in the diverse landscape of voices. They are not. Very, very few modern political movements were defeated explicitly at the tip of a spear instead of the stroke of a pen. Nazism is in scarce company in that regard.
There's no point at all to engage any of it as though Nazism is the same as normal political speech. Allowing for ideological recidivism and re-litigating WWII sort of defeats the purpose of having fought that war and conquered them to begin with.
It would make way, way more sense to consider them enemies of the state and deal with them as such.
On point, they are akin to ISIS, perhaps people confuse them for 'just another ideology' just because they are too afraid to act on it right now, but given the opportunity they will, and recruiting people IS their opportunity.
No. The distinction is that neo-nazis chose to follow a hateful ideology. Gay people did not choose to be gay. I’m not supporting denial of service, in fact I think nobody should be denied service. I’m just pointing out that the equivalence is not right.