The UN's Authority Over the US (from Random Rants LXIX)

[Commodore]

Yes, you're basically implying that the UN is an offshoot of the US government and that it's meant to obey, not order, the dictates of the US, and that everyone should bow before your might.

Well, seeing as the US could single-handedly cause the UN to collapse by pulling support, I'd say a little bowing isn't too much to ask...

 

[red_elk]

A person should be allowed to express any opinion they want, no matter how hateful or wrong it might be because expressing an opinion does not violate the rights of anyone else. Remember: racists are still human beings and they are entitled to the same rights and protections the rest of us are entitled to. I think that's a concept that a lot of non-Americans whose governments don't give everyone the same rights and protections struggle with.

But free speech in the US is restricted, like everywhere else in developed world. There are exceptions about privacy violations, obscenity, inciting violence, many others. From what I read, there is no radical difference between free speech laws in USA and Europe or Canada.

 

[JohannaK]

Well, seeing as the US could single-handedly cause the UN to collapse by pulling support, I'd say a little bowing isn't too much to ask...

That presupposes that the rest of members cant shore up 600M, and if you mean leaving it altogether it will probably just improve its standing in everyone's eyes.

 

[Takhisis]

So you think giving everyone the same rights and protections under the law is a bad thing? Interesting...

Can't there be a protection against hate speech? Most of it qualifies as libel and slander, but I don't see any court awarding damages for that.

Well, seeing as the US could single-handedly cause the UN to collapse by pulling support, I'd say a little bowing isn't too much to ask...

Y'know, the post with which you started your discussion essentially reads, in tone as well as in content, as a pimp slapping around one of his girls who wants to quit and telling her ‘beach, I own you’.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So you think giving everyone the same rights and protections under the law is a bad thing? Interesting...

You're advocating that hate speech and discrimination be legal. I'm advocating the opposite.

Therefore, you're saying it's okay to harm the targets of hate speech, because some types of discrimination mean certain groups are denied housing, education, the right to vote, etc.

If the tables were turned and the targets decided to do this to you, would you still think it was okay?

You remind me of the Reformacons who rant about the Charter of Rights, whining that it means they're not allowed to discriminate against whatever minority group they're prejudiced against... and it never seems to occur to them that the Charter of Rights is intended to protect everyone - including them.

 

[Traitorfish]

So you think giving everyone the same rights and protections under the law is a bad thing? Interesting...

Laws designed to prohibit the espousal of racist attitudes presumably apply to racists and non-racists alike.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Wow, what a big lack of understanding on international matters behind the usual trumpist machito rant from the OP. In fact the UN is the only recognized institution with international legitimacy. Any government will much more likely adopt any measures if they are proposed by UN instead of US. US influence over UN is of capital importance for US world politics. In other words US needs UN as a tool for getting legitimacy. It was designed that way since the beginning. If it bows to the US it will not longer be respected anymore and lost his very reason for existence. This is particularly important today, when the US so badly needs other countries help to effectively fight terrorism. In case of any terrorist attack in USA we will see Trump turning towards UN and bow asking for help.

But hey, i strongly support any shot in the foot kind of measure by US politics and would love to see UN headquarters leaving New York and going to Geneva or some EU country, where it should be btw.

 

[Camikaze]

Laws designed to prohibit the espousal of racist attitudes presumably apply to racists and non-racists alike.

Just as the laws prohibiting sleeping on the streets apply to the rich and poor alike, right?

There are far better arguments.

 

[Yeekim]

Wanted to bring up marriage laws myself, but yeah.

 

[Traitorfish]

Just as the laws prohibiting sleeping on the streets apply to the rich and poor alike, right?

Homelessness is an involuntary condition, racism is- at least in the sense we're talking about here- is not.

 

[innonimatu]

Homelessness is an involuntary condition, racism is- at least in the sense we're talking about here- is not.

Homeless people are morally bankrupt because they're... well, bankrupt. They chose not to work, don't you see? Just woke up one day and decided they would be lazy layabouts.
Just like the morally bankrupt racists who are... well, racists. They chose to have prejudices against some other group. Just woke up one day and decided they would hare [insert group here].

See how easy it is to play this game? And how self-deceiving and counter-productive? Neither of the things above you can just forbid. You have instead to create the conditions to slowly (let's be realistic, as things stand now the politics of doing something effective will not be fast) put an end to them. Just banning what you don't like does not make it go away.
I'm not saying that forbidding stuff never solves anything. I'm saying that racism (and homelessness) as things stand now is a hard problem to tackle and eradicate. My impression is that racism requires deescalation first, and repressive laws on speech directed against it will instead escalate things further. (my impression about homelessness, btw, is that it won't get eradicate through handouts by require a restructuring of the competitive capitalist economy into something else; and certainly won't be eradicated through bans, but those have unfortunately become common)

Contemporary politics seems to be taking a turn towards cosmetic fixes and farces lately. Modern societies were supposed to have left that being in the "information age". We didn't. Just goes to show that politics actually changes very little throughout history... people still do not have the time to engage in politics very deeply, to research and argue and become actually informed. And that is one of the reasons why racism is actually mostly involuntary as fas as I can see.

 

[Traitorfish]

You think people daub themselves with swastikas and chant "the Jews will not replace us" involuntarily?

It seems like somebody would have said something, if that was a thing. Like a Buzzfeed article or something.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Can't there be a protection against hate speech? Most of it qualifies as libel and slander, but I don't see any court awarding damages for that.

The thing is that libel and standard apply to a specific target. So if I slander someone, that person can sue me for damages. Whereas if I make fun of a country, it doesn't mean the whole country gets to sue me.

Slandering someone is also capable of doing a lot of tangible damage to someone. Reputation is quite important. Not to say that racist comments don't do damage either, but there is still the difference between directing words that can destroy someone's life as opposed to offending them. And while that makes them an ******* either way, being one isn't against the law.

 

[Takhisis]

You think people daub themselves with swastikas and chant "the Jews will not replace us" involuntarily?

It's involuntary in the sense that they cannot be blamed for it but voluntary in the sense that they recognise a threat and act to forestall it.

The thing is that libel and standard apply to a specific target. So if I slander someone, that person can sue me for damages. Whereas if I make fun of a country, it doesn't mean the whole country gets to sue me.

Slandering someone is also capable of doing a lot of tangible damage to someone. Reputation is quite important. Not to say that racist comments don't do damage either, but there is still the difference between directing words that can destroy someone's life as opposed to offending them. And while that makes them an ******* either way, being one isn't against the law.

Ehh… in other countries there are public entities devoted to prosecuting racist statements and so on. Of course, the US is one of the few countries to retain overseas colonies, so they are a few decades behind the rest of the world.

 

[Arwon]

The thing is that libel and standard apply to a specific target. So if I slander someone, that person can sue me for damages. Whereas if I make fun of a country, it doesn't mean the whole country gets to sue me.

Slandering someone is also capable of doing a lot of tangible damage to someone. Reputation is quite important. Not to say that racist comments don't do damage either, but there is still the difference between directing words that can destroy someone's life as opposed to offending them. And while that makes them an ******* either way, being one isn't against the law.

In many countries, racial, ethnic and national vilification is an actionable civil offence quite similar to defamation of an individual.

For instance, here's a list of some successful and unsuccessful civil actions in Australia.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ehh… in other countries there are public entities devoted to prosecuting racist statements and so on. Of course, the US is one of the few countries to retain overseas colonies, so they are a few decades behind the rest of the world.

Indeed. We still use inches, for crying out loud.

In many countries, racial, ethnic and national vilification is an actionable civil offence quite similar to defamation of an individual.

For instance, here's a list of some successful and unsuccessful civil actions in Australia.

Interesting. I would imagine a lot of these would be enough to be considered harassment and not protected speech over here. Definitely the last one.Not a lawyer though, of course.

Randomly fished up one: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...hbor-race-harass-suit-met-20160803-story.html

 

[Takhisis]

A key point in that would be the fact that you have a gazillion penal codes due to this ‘states' rights’ thing.

 

[Commodore]

Most of it qualifies as libel and slander, but I don't see any court awarding damages for that.

Not by the US standard, it doesn't. As Archon_Wing already stated, in the US you have to be able to show how what someone said about you caused tangible damage to you (tangible usually meaning something you can put a specific dollar amount on). When it comes to libel and slander, emotional distress/damage is usually not considered enough for a court to award damages. So if I say something really racist to someone it doesn't matter how upset they get over it, there isn't a single court in the US that will do anything about it.

Plus, the burden of proof in the US for libel/slander/defamation cases is ridiculously high. So much so, that while I don't have the numbers (and a quick Google search isn't yielding any), I would venture to guess that maybe around 1% of such cases actually see a judgement in favor of the plaintiff. I'm basing that on the fact that every such case I hear about results in it either being dismissed or a judgement in favor of the defendant. That means it's pretty meaningless to sue for libel or slander in the US unless you know for sure you are going to get it.

 

[Camikaze]

Homelessness is an involuntary condition, racism is- at least in the sense we're talking about here- is not.

That's a distinction, but not as a meaningful response to liberal neutralist complaints. That is, you're responding to an argument that something is bad because it isn't neutral in one sense, by saying "look, it's neutral in another sense." That doesn't address the form of neutrality that is said to be breached, and that is breached by a prohibition on racist speech. The proper response is to discuss whether that form of neutrality is worthwhile, or required in a liberal system (I dunno how far you'd get talking about non-liberal systems).

Commodore is complaining that limitations on free speech infringe on neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification; the ideas that the the state should not favour one conception of the good over another, and should take action justified by one conception of the good rather than another.

The best response is pointing out how a liberal society actually requires a form of perfectionism - if you want a liberal society, you must depart from neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification. To refuse to do so would create an illiberal society.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's a distinction, but not as a meaningful response to liberal neutralist complaints. That is, you're responding to an argument that something is bad because it isn't neutral in one sense, by saying "look, it's neutral in another sense." That doesn't address the form of neutrality that is said to be breached, and that is breached by a prohibition on racist speech. The proper response is to discuss whether that form of neutrality is worthwhile, or required in a liberal system (I dunno how far you'd get talking about non-liberal systems).

Commodore is complaining that limitations on free speech infringe on neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification; the ideas that the the state should not favour one conception of the good over another, and should take action justified by one conception of the good rather than another.

The best response is pointing out how a liberal society actually requires a form of perfectionism - if you want a liberal society, you must depart from neutrality of aim and neutrality of justification. To refuse to do so would create an illiberal society.

All fair. But my response was to Commodore's initial, perplexing claim that restrictions on hate-speech are wrong because they are discriminatory against specific individuals.