And so it begins...
The legality of this aside, censorship is simply an insane approach to handling crazies and their potential acolytes. As they say, a prophet is never honored in his country, and there is no faster, surer way of making men like Wright and Von Brunn appear to be persecuted prophets than to persecute them for what they are saying.
Let them speak. Counter them with honest, direct, even vicious and brutal truthful speech. If they survive and even thrive after an onslaught of better, more powerful expression of good ideas, then there is no point in mourning the direction in which we are headed because frankly, we'll deserve it.
H/T: Something Feral.
It's not enough to prosecute these murders as murders. They are hate-motivated crimes and each of these men had been under some sort of police surveillance prior to their actions. Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?The only good thing that can be said about the writer, Bonnie Erbe, is that she was consistent in her own argument since she included everyone from James W. Von Brunn, to the Muslim who killed Pvt. Long, to Jeremiah Wright. Even though she is calling for an illegal, unconstitutional preemptive attack on free speech enforced by violations of the fourth, fifth, sixth and fourteenth amendments, she is at least consistent in calling for the violation of the rights of all who engage in hate speech. Not that it would be fairly applied once the jackboots start getting their marching orders, but it's the thought that counts.
The legality of this aside, censorship is simply an insane approach to handling crazies and their potential acolytes. As they say, a prophet is never honored in his country, and there is no faster, surer way of making men like Wright and Von Brunn appear to be persecuted prophets than to persecute them for what they are saying.
Let them speak. Counter them with honest, direct, even vicious and brutal truthful speech. If they survive and even thrive after an onslaught of better, more powerful expression of good ideas, then there is no point in mourning the direction in which we are headed because frankly, we'll deserve it.
H/T: Something Feral.
I have heard this argument before but after reviewing history, I am unconvinced. There is a limit to asshattery that can be accepted by the rank and file before they simply state that "he got what was coming" and "what took them so long". Some prophets don't get revered anywhere. Nor do they deserve to be.
While you are correct in principle, it's safer to assume that anyone who isn't openly praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster might actually garner some sympathy from crazy people, and to not risk making a martyr of them. Even when dealing with acolytes of the FSM, one should not risk making a martyr of them. All it takes is one true believer to make a mess of things.
You cannot live your life in order to avoid the risk of offending the insane. First, it is difficult to know what will set them off. Nor should any free society be enslaved to accomodate the lunatics. Some people deserve death. Many more people deserve lessor punishments by the state. You cannot and should not ignore their criminal vices to avoid making martyrs of them. They can just as easily be "martyrs" and "persecuted" because you give them a traffic ticket for speeding in a school zone. Make laws for the benefit of the masses, not the loons at the expense of the masses.
If a mess occurs, then do all the reasonable and appropriate things that need to be done. When any one group is deemed to have too many "messy" people, exterminate them.
No one needs to live in fear of them. All that we need to do is either leave them alone or counter them with speech. Prior restraints are just a way of antagonizing them, and it would be ironic for a "free society" to use prior restraints on freedom of speech. If you have a problem with immigrants, just remove them. If you have a problem with citizens, you have a duty to wait until they actually commit a crime.
Kill them all. Even their infants. God will know His own...
I think we are in agreement now.
I too am not in favor of prior restraint, since restraining known crazy people happens once they manifest craziness. Other groups I find objectionable, simularly display their objectionable behavior. If violent street gangs reject violence and become social assistance groups, then I don't feel as stringly about exterminating them.
We don't deed to kill the infants, but sorting them over a large geographical distance may be logistically infeasable. I would be just as happy to adopt them out and let them group up to see if their unpleasantness is a genetic trait or learned.
Wiping out an entire group is hard to justify in a free, decent society. Not impossible, but it could only even theoretically be done on the basis of both ideology and a demonstrated causal link between that ideology and violence to life, liberty and property.
In support of the author's position, I do believe that there are some positions that are incompatable with peaceful existence and shold therefore be expunged from society. Most speech does not fall into that category. What does:
1. Islamic foreigners. There is no reason to let them into this country and no reason to let them stay here now. And certainly no good reaon to teach them nuclear physics and Chemistry and how to pilot a 767 while they are here.
2. Any member of a known criminal gang with a history of violence. Freedom of assembly is fine, but membership in a criminal gang, supported by wearing of gang colors and association with other gang members should be illegal in and of itself. Law enforcement should be seeking these people out and deporting them (if non-citizens) or confining them.
3. Third world citizens with no useful skills or wealth. No reason to let them come here and stay. They are turning "here" into where they came from because it is easier for them than conforming to our standard of living.
As long as a welfare-state is operating as the arbiter of the appropriateness for which groups "belong", the situation is not going to improve. As it is, it is nothing more than an attractive nuisance for the undesirables of neighboring nations at the expense of those that use the US dollar.
Furthermore, I do not believe the State is interested in the promotion of "a peaceful existence", but of a ongoing state of "emergency" that both justifies its own existence and permits the expansion of its own arbitrary powers; I have seen little evidence to the contrary.
You nailed it, SF.
I do not believe the State is interested in the promotion of "a peaceful existence", but of a ongoing state of "emergency" that both justifies its own existence and permits the expansion of its own arbitrary powers;
Yeah, Goldberg called it didn't he, this necessary reliance on constant state of emergency for fascist governments? Unfortunately for us, it's both Republican and Democrat administrations that have been at this off and on since Lincoln, and continuously since LBJ, via various and ongoing wars-on-a-concept.
I think the gummint coming down hard on hating blowhards is like feeding trolls on a blog...it only legitimizes their arguments. While martyr may be a bit strong of a word, it may very well turn them into a <i>cause celebre</i>.
The line that we draw currently--an immediate incitement to violence--is a good one I think. But this assumes that the State has an interest in controlling thoughts which translate to actions.
I'll proffer a different idea. What about citizens victimized by the speech-turned-into-action of others just suing the pants off of the offending citizens in court for tort liability? That way, there's no government involvement other than a venue for citizens to seek redress for actual harm, it keeps the gov't out of the practice of curtailing speech it doesn't like, and provides an outlet for the rank and file who are tired of a$$hattery to peacefully stomp on the most egregious violators of decorum and responsibility.
Prohibiting association with gang members is fine, but that'll eventually spiral out of control into the point where it's illegal to associate with someone you know has committed a crime.
The simplest thing to do is ignore such people. The proactive thing to do is to educate them and redirect their wish to effect social change so that it is positive and appropriate.