I am honestly surprised it took this long for someone to warp freedom of expression right back around to include freedom of hate speech and racist symbolism. "Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance" applies here and I hope this is where the line gets drawn.
warp freedom of expression right back around to include freedom of hate
Reactionaries have been playing this game since I was in grade school. The Young Conservatives of Texas, notably on the UT college campus, had all sorts of immigrant hate events they'd run every year or two. And when someone would inevitably object or try to intervene, they engaged in a collective scream of martyrdom over their First Amendment Liberties.
None of this seemed to apply to the LGBTQ organizations, the anti-war demonstrators, Muslims, or the union organizers for staff and faculty, of course. You have the right to be a Nazi and nothing else.
“Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance” applies here
I've always preferred the Inglorious Bastards approach to fascists.
You're invited to make your views known. And the rest of us are entitled to brand you with them.
Went to a speech by Bill Clinton and the Dalai Llama. By my (very distant) memory, both were dildo free.
I didn't have time to fuck with the Riechwing trolls who came around campus starting in 2005, cause I was already a super-senior and just needed to wrap up a couple credits to graduate and get on with my life. Anne Coulter and her successors were already in my rear view mirror.
It's been that way for decades. The ACLU defended the Nazis in 1977 when they wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. It was a big drawn out test of 1st amendment rights and while the person actually defending them hated them, he felt silencing their speech was tantamount to silencing all speech. It's why there is the scene in the Blue Brothers where Jake says "I hate illinois nazis"
I'm torn on this, because in a way it really is a 1st amendment issue. Does a university that gets public funds and is accredited by the state get to police the political affiliations and speech of it's students? At the college I went to in CA, we routinely had religious fanatics on campus telling us about sin and how people were going to hell, but they had a 1st amendment right to be there. We heckled them and yelled and did sin right in their faces anyways, because fuck them. Schools often have standards similar to public institutions with how they handle free speech, especially state schools.
Personally, I want to see every one in this group beaten to a pulp for their beliefs. And then beaten again. I want to see who they are and ostracize them and make them feel like shit over it.
I feel that it is more up to us to deal with it, than it is for a state institution or a school that is an extension of the state.
Let them salute, but also include in the ruling that taking a picture of them doing nazi salutes, printing up flyers of it, and sending it to their classmates and professors is free speech. So is setting up a twitter account that spams the photo so it's the first thing an employer sees when they do a quick Google search of this person.
They should have all the rights in the world to espouse their nazi beliefs, as long as I have the same rights to make sure those beliefs are well known in every aspect of their lives for the foreseeable future.
Oh yea! There is no 1st amendment protection from other individuals. Just from the school itself, as a government run entity.
You and I have every right to do what you say. So long as the photos were taken in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy and the photos and flyers are true and factful information. There is nothing that I'm aware of preventing you from doing anything like that (except maybe the schools code of conduct, but no legal statute.)
I mean, that's why we are free to post the picture of Musk doing the Nazi salute. And why I have this shirt.
While I don't disagree in principle on the importance of freedom of expression, there are edge cases like these where it becomes hard to justify the potential societal harm associated with certain types of speech.
Take your example - if we have more Nazis publicly express their hateful beliefs we risk normalizing their ideology, meaning that calling folks out for being a Nazi starts to lose it's effectiveness to the point of it becoming just another political belief. So all your pictures and stuff you are proposing cease to be effective, and may even act as further normalization of their hateful speech. All the while making the Nazi's target demographics feel more insecure and ostracized in society.
As I said in my top comment, I strongly believe the tolerance of intolerance is, in itself, normalizing, promoting, and condoning intolerance. So while you are free to say what you want, once that crosses a line of inciting acts of violence or promoting discrimination, we should stop treating it as expression and consider it equivalent or at least related to committing an act of either.
If we don't we end up with Nazi Germany before long.
I don't entirely disagree. But it does feel like it's along the same slippery slope fallacy where once you start criminalizing one type of speech those who are unscrupulous enough will find a way to subvert it to attack others and restrict additional speech until dissent becomes criminal.
I don't think we should tolerate the intolerant. We as a society need to be intolerant of them, but it's a fine line when it's the government itself that is doing it. Businesses need to ostracize them. Do not sell them goods or food. Do not allow them to enter your premises. Do not hire them.
We as individuals need to do the same.
Quite frankly, it's the intolerant who have weaponized this so effectively. They have no qualms with harassing and doxing people whose views differ. I suppose there is a definition of intolerant that the tolerant need to collectively identify and fight at all costs. But it's hard to define it especially when the intolerant use our tolerance against us.
I know that doing so will lead them to their own echo chambers and enclaves. I don't have a solution for that which doesn't involve physical harm. And the older I get, the more I understand the necessity of violence in order to preserve life and peace, as much as that sounds like an oxymoron.
It's something we're not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this "paradox of tolerance" is something governments the world over struggle with.
And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It's the same reason something like the "Gish gallop" works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it's easier and faster to lie and keep lying.
And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don't think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).
Yup. Like I said toward the end, it seems the only direct way is through violence and at the cost of an individuals life or liberty.
So many think that the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to simple by intolerant of intolerance. But that's such an oversimplification. I agree on principal. I just don't know how that looks in practice.
@brygphilomena The way it works legally is that while govt might not be able to discriminate against you for what's called "viewpoint", literally everyone else is. So one day as a College Republican, you throw a Nazi salute and it gets in a photo that gets circulated. Years later, you find it hard getting jobs, but none of those private employers have to respect your "views". Any any job you do have might get yanked from you at any moment, for legal cause: "We don't approve of this. Get out."
That's what I'm saying. The university can't do much regarding these dumb fucks views because they are a state run school and as an extension of the government the 1st amendment applies to the school and staff in their official capacity and when they act as an agent of the school.
But you, me, and any business can certainly tell these fucks that they aren't welcome. Businesses can refuse to sell them goods, hire them, or allow them on their premises.
You and I can tell them to their face that they should go fuck themselves. And we can post whatever we want about them online or on posters so long as it's true. There are libel and slander laws which prevent us from printing or saying untrue things about them, though. That's why I mentioned in my previous comment that they flyers would need to be true and factual. I mean, we can say lies but we'd risk civil liability for damages reputations and prospects.
This is the way. Name and shame, leave a record for future potential employers. If we give the government an inch on first amendment rights they'll take a mile, especially in Florida.
Sabatini, a conservative Lake County commissioner [and a douche who is representing these assholes], also claimed the chapter was really shut down because it hosted Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate James Fishback on March 11.
Fishback has repeatedly called his GOP rival, Representative Byron Daniels, a “slave.” Daniels is Black. Sabatini said that event was used to deactivate the group and replace it with more “vanilla” conservatives.
Apparently, vanilla conservative just means conservatives that are not openly racist
If they were called the College Nazis then everyone reading this would assume they were some weird, fringe, extremist group with no popular support whatsoever.
But they're not. They're called the College Republicans of America, and the whole reason this is newsworthy is because of the clear link it draws between Nazism and the Republican party.
I'm all for calling them Nazi scum, but let it be known that these Nazi scum claim to be directly aligned with Donald Trump and the Republican platform.
"college republican" sounds funny, most dont survive past 1-2 years in it, even in Community colleges, they have too many contradictory views to even pass most classes.
Propagandists. Going around being a dick and calling people names and abusing people is often expellable for most colleges. Imo nazi salutes are just another way to be uncivil and hateful to other students. I see no reason not to expell them.
i've never gotten why people worship hitler or his ideas. he literally was a racist charlie chaplin cosplayer that dropped out of art school because he couldn't paint. if he was alive today people would call him a incel schizo .
ACLU affiliate NYCLU (New York Civil Liberties Union) sued the private ivy league Columbia University over the "suspension of pro-Palestinian groups" so the ACLU of Florida could choose to help these neo-nazis; since the ACLU has in the past helped neo-nazis, Republicans, the KKK, and other horrible groups.
They disbanded themselves? That just means they'll regroup under a different name. They're MAGAs, they don't do ANYTHING in good faith, and the young ones are probably the most sociopathic.
UCF is a state school, so it is managed by the state government, and DeSatan has been active in manipulating the state colleges. That's why I was surprised when they disbanded, because DeSatan would probably defend them (I did not hear his reaction, if he had one). Now I realize they'll just pop up again as The Young MAGAturds or whatever.
This comes down to freedom of speech. And right then and there they should be allowed to do it.
So while I do personally agree that they have the right to do that. I also believe that freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences.
It is okay that the tolerant do not tolerate the intolerant.
Now if this is a private university, I did not read the article for I am not in the mood at this time of night, then they do/should have the right to dictate what is appropriate for their campus. While if it is public free speech is free speech.
I am honestly surprised it took this long for someone to warp freedom of expression right back around to include freedom of hate speech and racist symbolism. "Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance" applies here and I hope this is where the line gets drawn.
Nah, they've been warping it that way since Obama at least, if not earlier. It's just only now they've had a rogue executive branch to back them up.
One of the major Supreme Court tests of this was from KKK asswipes in Brandenburg in 1969
All the good scrotus podcasts have episodes on it if you’re curious.
Reactionaries have been playing this game since I was in grade school. The Young Conservatives of Texas, notably on the UT college campus, had all sorts of immigrant hate events they'd run every year or two. And when someone would inevitably object or try to intervene, they engaged in a collective scream of martyrdom over their First Amendment Liberties.
None of this seemed to apply to the LGBTQ organizations, the anti-war demonstrators, Muslims, or the union organizers for staff and faculty, of course. You have the right to be a Nazi and nothing else.
I've always preferred the Inglorious Bastards approach to fascists.
You're invited to make your views known. And the rest of us are entitled to brand you with them.
and you are not immune to consequences of being hateful, that is something that ESCAPES white supremecists/neo nazis/conservatives.
The dildo protests were fun tho. Were you there for those?
I think I was a little early for them.
Went to a speech by Bill Clinton and the Dalai Llama. By my (very distant) memory, both were dildo free.
I didn't have time to fuck with the Riechwing trolls who came around campus starting in 2005, cause I was already a super-senior and just needed to wrap up a couple credits to graduate and get on with my life. Anne Coulter and her successors were already in my rear view mirror.
It's been that way for decades. The ACLU defended the Nazis in 1977 when they wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. It was a big drawn out test of 1st amendment rights and while the person actually defending them hated them, he felt silencing their speech was tantamount to silencing all speech. It's why there is the scene in the Blue Brothers where Jake says "I hate illinois nazis"
I'm torn on this, because in a way it really is a 1st amendment issue. Does a university that gets public funds and is accredited by the state get to police the political affiliations and speech of it's students? At the college I went to in CA, we routinely had religious fanatics on campus telling us about sin and how people were going to hell, but they had a 1st amendment right to be there. We heckled them and yelled and did sin right in their faces anyways, because fuck them. Schools often have standards similar to public institutions with how they handle free speech, especially state schools.
Personally, I want to see every one in this group beaten to a pulp for their beliefs. And then beaten again. I want to see who they are and ostracize them and make them feel like shit over it.
I feel that it is more up to us to deal with it, than it is for a state institution or a school that is an extension of the state.
Let them salute, but also include in the ruling that taking a picture of them doing nazi salutes, printing up flyers of it, and sending it to their classmates and professors is free speech. So is setting up a twitter account that spams the photo so it's the first thing an employer sees when they do a quick Google search of this person.
They should have all the rights in the world to espouse their nazi beliefs, as long as I have the same rights to make sure those beliefs are well known in every aspect of their lives for the foreseeable future.
Oh yea! There is no 1st amendment protection from other individuals. Just from the school itself, as a government run entity.
You and I have every right to do what you say. So long as the photos were taken in a public place where they have no expectation of privacy and the photos and flyers are true and factful information. There is nothing that I'm aware of preventing you from doing anything like that (except maybe the schools code of conduct, but no legal statute.)
I mean, that's why we are free to post the picture of Musk doing the Nazi salute. And why I have this shirt.
While I don't disagree in principle on the importance of freedom of expression, there are edge cases like these where it becomes hard to justify the potential societal harm associated with certain types of speech.
Take your example - if we have more Nazis publicly express their hateful beliefs we risk normalizing their ideology, meaning that calling folks out for being a Nazi starts to lose it's effectiveness to the point of it becoming just another political belief. So all your pictures and stuff you are proposing cease to be effective, and may even act as further normalization of their hateful speech. All the while making the Nazi's target demographics feel more insecure and ostracized in society.
As I said in my top comment, I strongly believe the tolerance of intolerance is, in itself, normalizing, promoting, and condoning intolerance. So while you are free to say what you want, once that crosses a line of inciting acts of violence or promoting discrimination, we should stop treating it as expression and consider it equivalent or at least related to committing an act of either.
If we don't we end up with Nazi Germany before long.
I don't entirely disagree. But it does feel like it's along the same slippery slope fallacy where once you start criminalizing one type of speech those who are unscrupulous enough will find a way to subvert it to attack others and restrict additional speech until dissent becomes criminal.
I don't think we should tolerate the intolerant. We as a society need to be intolerant of them, but it's a fine line when it's the government itself that is doing it. Businesses need to ostracize them. Do not sell them goods or food. Do not allow them to enter your premises. Do not hire them.
We as individuals need to do the same.
Quite frankly, it's the intolerant who have weaponized this so effectively. They have no qualms with harassing and doxing people whose views differ. I suppose there is a definition of intolerant that the tolerant need to collectively identify and fight at all costs. But it's hard to define it especially when the intolerant use our tolerance against us.
I know that doing so will lead them to their own echo chambers and enclaves. I don't have a solution for that which doesn't involve physical harm. And the older I get, the more I understand the necessity of violence in order to preserve life and peace, as much as that sounds like an oxymoron.
It's something we're not going to solve in a Lemmy comment thread, but this "paradox of tolerance" is something governments the world over struggle with.
And you are correct in saying that bad actors will find a way to leverage any perceived weakness (tolerance, kindness, decency) against you, because they experience no moral or social repercussions for doing so. It's the same reason something like the "Gish gallop" works, if you face no repercussions for lying exploiting the societal framework against your opponent by shifting the onus onto them to stay truthful and refute your lies mean you get to shift the burden of work to them, meaning it's easier and faster to lie and keep lying.
And yes, you are also correct on how curtailing speech by legislation can be a slippery slope, malicious actors will likely leverage whatever you come up with to curtail hate speech and inciting of violence against their targets groups into the exact thing they will use to then attack the liberties of those groups with. I just don't think not doing anything and letting societal repercussions do the job for us is working all to well either (see the rise of Nazi and other extremist right-wing ideologies).
Yup. Like I said toward the end, it seems the only direct way is through violence and at the cost of an individuals life or liberty.
So many think that the solution to the paradox of tolerance is to simple by intolerant of intolerance. But that's such an oversimplification. I agree on principal. I just don't know how that looks in practice.
@brygphilomena The way it works legally is that while govt might not be able to discriminate against you for what's called "viewpoint", literally everyone else is. So one day as a College Republican, you throw a Nazi salute and it gets in a photo that gets circulated. Years later, you find it hard getting jobs, but none of those private employers have to respect your "views". Any any job you do have might get yanked from you at any moment, for legal cause: "We don't approve of this. Get out."
That's what I'm saying. The university can't do much regarding these dumb fucks views because they are a state run school and as an extension of the government the 1st amendment applies to the school and staff in their official capacity and when they act as an agent of the school.
But you, me, and any business can certainly tell these fucks that they aren't welcome. Businesses can refuse to sell them goods, hire them, or allow them on their premises.
You and I can tell them to their face that they should go fuck themselves. And we can post whatever we want about them online or on posters so long as it's true. There are libel and slander laws which prevent us from printing or saying untrue things about them, though. That's why I mentioned in my previous comment that they flyers would need to be true and factual. I mean, we can say lies but we'd risk civil liability for damages reputations and prospects.
This is the way. Name and shame, leave a record for future potential employers. If we give the government an inch on first amendment rights they'll take a mile, especially in Florida.
Of course it’s Florida.
Of course it's Republicans.
Apparently, vanilla conservative just means conservatives that are not openly racist
Can we call the group fighting to use the NAZI salute fucking NAZI's please!?
If they were called the College Nazis then everyone reading this would assume they were some weird, fringe, extremist group with no popular support whatsoever.
But they're not. They're called the College Republicans of America, and the whole reason this is newsworthy is because of the clear link it draws between Nazism and the Republican party.
I'm all for calling them Nazi scum, but let it be known that these Nazi scum claim to be directly aligned with Donald Trump and the Republican platform.
@cjoll4 Doesn't surprise me. I'd expect nazi scum to be aligned with other nazi scum.
Shoot Nazis when you see them. It is always morally correct.
"We ain’t in the prisoner-takin’ business; we’re in the killin’ Nazi business. "
I think this is the "we're going to give you something you can't take off" scene because they were forced to take him prisoner.
Yes, it's a far more menacing image.
Idk man.
Bärenjüden kinda fits the bill you're looking for.
Fuck Nazis and fascists. I hope they get the shit beat out of them the moment they try to salute.
The only good Nazi...
Is a beaten to a pulp Nazi
I say temporarily allow it. Let them out themselves in public as much as they like for a while. Let them fuck around so that they might find out.
It won't matter. The places they would go to work in the future, their families, their friends--none of them care.
This is the finding of out. Throw the book at them now. Expel the hate speaker and anyone who endorsed the photo on social media.
I would agree if we lived in any form of a reasonable world. They are NO WHERE NEAR afraid enough.
yup, i prefer my nazi's take their masks off personally. makes identifying them easier
"If you can't beat the nazi allegations, you must join it!" - republicans
"college republican" sounds funny, most dont survive past 1-2 years in it, even in Community colleges, they have too many contradictory views to even pass most classes.
That's what Ivy League is for.
Literally just expell and ban them and their nazi actions. Put em on lists and share the lists publicly
Damn they're not even using the "it's a Roman salute" excuse any more. But I bet you they'll complain if you call them Nazis
Propagandists. Going around being a dick and calling people names and abusing people is often expellable for most colleges. Imo nazi salutes are just another way to be uncivil and hateful to other students. I see no reason not to expell them.
I think you and I got wildly different versions of justice. Cause I was thinking severe corporal punishment then expulsion.
I don't think schools have that kind of authority, nor should they. What people do on their own time though...
Yeah, I was letting my feelings get in the way of rational thought. Sorry.
Counter productive. Extremely
As far as I know, they aren't being expelled, their dumb little club is just being abolished.
For those edgelords, all I can say is...
Holy fuck as soon as most of our WW2 vets are dead, lame-ass wannabe Nazis are back.
It looks like someone may decide to exercise their right to shoot Nazis, just like Grandpa did
i've never gotten why people worship hitler or his ideas. he literally was a racist charlie chaplin cosplayer that dropped out of art school because he couldn't paint. if he was alive today people would call him a incel schizo .
Now roast DJT and JDV
I read the headline and thought "this should go in nottheonion." Imagine my surprise... :D
the uf chapter was disbanded by the florida republican grouo themselves.
also, the university isnt a government entity so first admendment doesnt work here or am i wrong and does beingba state university mean something?
This actually is a state school.
It's part of the state university system of Florida.
i know its state, i meant "does being a state schill make it part of the givernment" - since only the government makes it a first admendment issue
Right. This one is funded and run by the state of Florida, it becomes an extension of government. So in the case of this school, yes.
ACLU affiliate NYCLU (New York Civil Liberties Union) sued the private ivy league Columbia University over the "suspension of pro-Palestinian groups" so the ACLU of Florida could choose to help these neo-nazis; since the ACLU has in the past helped neo-nazis, Republicans, the KKK, and other horrible groups.
The "tolerating the intolerant" which only managed to make those assholes more defiant instead of nipping them in the bud.
They disbanded themselves? That just means they'll regroup under a different name. They're MAGAs, they don't do ANYTHING in good faith, and the young ones are probably the most sociopathic.
UCF is a state school, so it is managed by the state government, and DeSatan has been active in manipulating the state colleges. That's why I was surprised when they disbanded, because DeSatan would probably defend them (I did not hear his reaction, if he had one). Now I realize they'll just pop up again as The Young MAGAturds or whatever.
Of course they did, because they're republicans...
I don't understand, doesn't this type of stuff go beyond college club stuff and wouldn't it violate the code of conduct for the individuals involved?
Then again, schools don't really seem to give a shit about enforcing rules about cheating anymore, sooo
some of these events arent sanctioned by the universities, they are third parties probably getting permits/permission from the dean sometimes.
Hmm, not a good look, defending a Nazi salute. That will be an interesting addition on your background checks for future employers to consider.
Okay devils advocate.
This comes down to freedom of speech. And right then and there they should be allowed to do it.
So while I do personally agree that they have the right to do that. I also believe that freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences.
It is okay that the tolerant do not tolerate the intolerant.
Now if this is a private university, I did not read the article for I am not in the mood at this time of night, then they do/should have the right to dictate what is appropriate for their campus. While if it is public free speech is free speech.
50% will hire them.
Sure, let them do it. Just let the caveat be that the school will look the other way when they get punched.
This is very simple. Allow them the right and then publish their names.
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/479ca645-0a1e-4b48-97c1-0fb93c63552e