All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[GindyPosts]

The Indiana State Senator apologized, but of course it was one of those mealy mouthed "If anyone was offended..." apologies.

He was someone who donated to the Oath Keepers, but then was all "I didn't know who those people really were", and also tried to pass a bunch of bills specifically out against BLM protesters.

[Jack Dracula]

Politely, I'll just have to disagree there.

Doing away with the filibuster on judges at the Federal level caused a lot of problems because there wasn't a "When The Tables Have Turned..." plan thought out through about "Plan D..."

Way too many versions of that where a Federal charge as a weapon will absolutely do more damage than lies that can be countered without having to charge someone to do so.

Never mind that anyone being charged can just whip out the old "I Had To Fold Because They Are Targeting Me..."

Nothing really changes, and folks who would have just have one more reason to buy into the lie.

As far as the filibuster example goes, the idea that Dems owned themselves over judicial nominees is a myth.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3573369001/

Our rating: False
We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

As to your second point. It doesn't matter what they say after the fact. The goal is to halt the spread of misinformation meant to destabilize our society. That outweighs any wah-wah on their part. They would have an opportunity to prove their claim in a court of law. That's really more than enough latitude,

After a few of the worst offenders lose their court cases the rest will learn to speak more responsibly. No one is limiting anyone's ability to speak, it's just making them take responsibility for what they say. As it should be.

[numberthirty]

As far as the filibuster example goes, the idea that Dems owned themselves over judicial nominees is a myth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3573369001/

Our rating: False
We rate this claim FALSE, based on research. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Unless the Federal level(which, obviously, is not a "Supreme Court..."-level judge...) judges appointed by Trump have somehow become a complete non-issue?

That article is literally the political equivalent of saying "I Meant To Do That..."

Again...

Having that sort of a move gamed out to at least "Plan D..." is the minimum that should be happening before even seriously considering something like what you have suggested.

[numberthirty]

...

As to your second point. It doesn't matter what they say after the fact. The goal is to halt the spread of misinformation meant to destabilize our society. That outweighs any wah-wah on their part. They would have an opportunity to prove their claim in a court of law. That's really more than enough latitude,

After a few of the worst offenders lose their court cases the rest will learn to speak more responsibly. No one is limiting anyone's ability to speak, it's just making them take responsibility for what they say. As it should be.

Take a moment...

Now, seriously consider how many folks Trump could have gone after because they could not actually prove the existence of a tape of whatever someone made up as far as Trump/Hotel Room/Russian Prostitutes.

What you are discussing would have given an already incredibly "Sue Happy..." President a massive stick to take to a whole bunch of people.

Which is just not a smart move.

No matter what the good that someone suspects that it could do.

[worstblogever]

He was someone who donated to the Oath Keepers, but then was all "I didn't know who those people really were", and also tried to pass a bunch of bills specifically out against BLM protesters.

Well, now we know it's not a one-off thar he's so protective of the legacy of fascists & Nazis.

[CaptainEurope]

A comedian was prosecuted for mocking the President of Turkey.

That was not based on the laws banning denial of the holocaust, that was closer to UK libel laws. He had called Erdogan a goat ficker in a poem.

And as others have said, it was dropped and the law clarified. Last year, there was a viral song called "Alles von der Kunstfreiheit gedeckt" (all of this covered by the liberty of arts) which successfully explored Freedom of Speech since.

Denying the holocaust happened is still illegal and that is a very good thing.

[JackDaw]

Denying the holocaust happened is still illegal and that is a very good thing.

Except it seems profoundly strange that such a specific law is necessary. Is there actually that many people that would deny the holocaust without the law? And a significant number of people daft enough to believe anyone making the claim?

Personally I think it’s better to have a reasonable general framework of law (e.g. a system that makes people responsible for proportionate damages if they recklessly make untrue statements) rather than target one specific utterance, however vile.

[Tendrin]

Except it seems profoundly strange that such a specific law is necessary. Is there actually that many people that would deny the holocaust without the law? And a significant number of people daft enough to believe anyone making the claim?

Personally I think it’s better to have a reasonable general framework of law (e.g. a system that makes people responsible for proportionate damages if they recklessly make untrue statements) rather than target one specific utterance, however vile.

Yes, it's necessary.

[JackDaw]

Yes, it's necessary.

Is it? Why?

[Tendrin]

Is it? Why?

The long and bloody history of anti-semitism, specifically. The point of the entire industry of holocaust denial.

[JackDaw]

The long and bloody history of anti-semitism, specifically. The point of the entire industry of holocaust denial.

But having a specific law (rather than a general framework for all damaging untrue reckless statements) does not do anything to change that.

Germany has a specific law, the UK doesn’t…but I don’t think level of tolerance/ intolerance on this specific problem is really different between the two.

Put it this way…I think in present day Anti-Vaxxers are causing far more damage than Holocaust denial nutters….yet I’ve seldom seen anyone advocating specific legislation to target anti-vax statements.

[kidfresh512]

But having a specific law (rather than a general framework for all damaging untrue reckless statements) does not do anything to change that.

Germany has a specific law, the UK doesn’t…but I don’t think level of tolerance/ intolerance on this specific problem is really different between the two.

Put it this way…I think in present day Anti-Vaxxers are causing far more damage than Holocaust denial nutters….yet I’ve seldom seen anyone advocating specific legislation to target anti-vax statements.

It seems like the easy answer to this would be the general agreement that the thing was real and it happened. Considering there was a bloody World War fought and bodies as proof of the genocide along with records, and survivors of the camps. It would seem easy to get a unified targeted approach to accurate historical records. And where possible not allowing anyone to come up with crackpot revisionist histories where insidious "alternative facts" can be allowed to openly permeate society legally. In that way it makes sense to me. Only the most sadistic crackpots would try arguing against it then.

Counter that to how America has dealt with slavery, Civil War, historical racism, lynching etc. The reason we have been having all these "debates" and protests about confederate monuments and statues is because that same revisionist history I mentioned before has been allowed to permeate society and the lack of education, perhaps purposefully, of what actually went on and who these people are that were. The very thought the Confederate flag is now "Southern Pride" is racist ignorance. Look how long it took anti lynching laws to make it to congress and be passed finally 65 years after Emmet Till. It failed 200 times before after first being introduced. When you have racists actually in place of power they don't want to be called out. When their supporters and voters ARE the racists they don't want the history of what they did and supported brought up unless they can use it as a shield and say look we passed it finally we aren't racists.

Specific and targeted is EASY. Far easier than an open framework as you are suggesting. Because the people in power want to continue using disinformation. Why hamstring your options if you don't have too?

Anti Vax, agreed on the damage they are doing and continuing to do. Consider however that at least in America. One of our two political parties have been LEADING in misinformation, and even as the leadership themselves get vaccinated before anyone else they still say and support their base of supporters that are anti vax. They still sue and create laws that are actively preventing and increasing sickness and death. By maligning and undermining science and health officials and local governments and school boards that want to try and save their communities. You aren't going to get them to agree to limit that legally by creating laws about broad reckless untrue statements. Because that is their whole formula for getting power in the first place. They have to campaign on that.

[Xheight]

It seems like the easy answer to this would be the general agreement that the thing was real and it happened. Considering there was a bloody World War fought and bodies as proof of the genocide along with records, and survivors of the camps. It would seem easy to get a unified targeted approach to accurate historical records. And where possible not allowing anyone to come up with crackpot revisionist histories where insidious "alternative facts" can be allowed to openly permeate society legally. In that way it makes sense to me. Only the most sadistic crackpots would try arguing against it then.

Counter that to how America has dealt with slavery, Civil War, historical racism, lynching etc. The reason we have been having all these "debates" and protests about confederate monuments and statues is because that same revisionist history I mentioned before has been allowed to permeate society and the lack of education, perhaps purposefully, of what actually went on and who these people are that were. The very thought the Confederate flag is now "Southern Pride" is racist ignorance. Look how long it took anti lynching laws to make it to congress and be passed finally 65 years after Emmet Till. It failed 200 times before after first being introduced. When you have racists actually in place of power they don't want to be called out. When their supporters and voters ARE the racists they don't want the history of what they did and supported brought up unless they can use it as a shield and say look we passed it finally we aren't racists.

Specific and targeted is EASY. Far easier than an open framework as you are suggesting. Because the people in power want to continue using disinformation. Why hamstring your options if you don't have too?

Strawman argument - Struggles like wars can not be boiled down to single ideological beliefs and stand on that alone. That is the opposite of realism but rather idealism. To which your and others attempt to hang some sort of law on certain objective facts conflates actions, certain actions with entire structures and again seems to disguise the intent here, and like so many hate laws, are not about objective action and harm but about punishing thought and ideas.

I don't disagree that Statues and the Civil War has been taken up as cover for ideology by some but let us be clear how that cover works and realize that it is not total in what a symbol can mean in its multivalent property. People did actually die heroically, tragically and without the culpability you imply in your absolutist quest to link ideas to reality. It is not ignorance about the causes of the Civil War that created nuanced history of that conflict just as Germans were not Nazis but were drawn into a struggle that was not entirely of their choosing.

Blanket laws that get around objective reality don't serve objectivism it only points to not being able to struggle with the ideology and win effectively. This where the Frankfurt school meets totalitarianism in that the idea of a dominant ideology is construct of power relations by engineering the construct through the state apparatus one can correct that "mistake" of our power relations. This is a epistemological problem that Horkheimer struggled with far more than today's law makers.

[Mister Mets]

That guardian story has nothing to do with Holocaust Denial laws, and your second link is just big business whining about how being responsible is hard and expensive, and when has that been something to believe?

And your point wasn't that some might not like laws restricting bans on hate speech but that it would be very problematic and only lead to abuse. And yet the best support you come up with is corporate push back and a case that never went to trial.

I think the fact that Germany is doing just fine and that the people are considered to be generally happy and free would give most people pause to think, "hey, maybe I was wrong?" ... but maybe that's just how my mind works?

As I've said before, laws implemented today in the United States would have a different context than laws implemented in Germany given its history of denazification, as well as a legal tradition dating back well before the Nazis that prioritizes free speech less than the US does.

The ridiculous efforts to prosecute comedians for mocking world leaders, or legal decisions that news reports of a conviction for double-murder be blocked from search engine results are examples of things that occur in a country without a more robust free speech tradition. It would likely be exploited in different ways in the United States if Trump's next Attorney General gets new statutory authority to go after critics.

[Xheight]

Public Figures and Government Leaders should be held accountable for their actions, and words are actions if they cause criminal negligence or wide spread harm. This is an area where the US is failing.

Ummm NO. Ideas don't kill people or take away their money or property. The slippery slope here is in full effect. Hitler didn't come to power on his ideas but by people going into the streets beating people up and the police looking the other way.

You can't control what people will think nor should anyone want to. That is perhaps the central point here in that you don't like what people are thinking and believing and are under the assumption that if someone does not come along and articulate it it will not exist. That is as Deleuze would say a very fascist impulse