Should intolerance be illegal?

[Grinkle]

I saw this on the Philosophy Matters FB page - I think @fresh_42 , this resonates with the German view of a free society? I wonder if its possible to objectively legislate such policies or if they just turn into a reflection of the beliefs of whoever is in power. I find the concept of making intolerance per se carved out from the first amendment as not-ok, but do wonder how that would end up looking in the real word.

 

[fresh_42]

I find the concept of making intolerance per se carved out from the first amendment as not-ok, but do wonder how that would end up looking in the real word.

Yes, this isn't an easy task. AFAIK, we have two main obstacles.

1.) Anyone working for a public employer (federal, state, or community level) is sworn in and background checked to the FDGO (freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung = liberal democratic basic order), as we call the backbone of our system. Even I, having a tutor job at university, had been. This is usually only a formality. However, in the 60s and 70s (IIRC), it led to some communist teachers being forbidden to do their job, which was heavily debated. Is it reasonable to prevent someone from teaching English, Math, or German, only because he seeks to abandon democracy on a political level? On the other hand, you don't want your kids being indoctrinated in that direction. Cp. Radikalenerlass.

2.) We know the criminal offense of Volksverhetzung, incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung, Incitement of Hatred). I tried to describe it here: https://civicswatch.com/threads/charlie-kirk-assassination.170/page-3#post-2637
This is far more often not only a formality, but also subject to real events. We don't want to have another Goebbels again, people inciting the population. So you are not allowed to deny the existence of the Holocaust or demand "Palestine for Palestinians from the river to the sea", which would imply the destruction of Israel. The execution of this law often leads to court cases weighing the conflict between incitement to hatred and freedom of expression. Our courts are indeed an independent political power. Even judges and prosecutors are not elected, but trained and subject to point 1 above. Our courts take the freedom of expression very seriously. Here is a famous, more recent case, David Irving. Cp. also Legality of Holocaust denial.


Neither is an issue for ordinary people like you and me, and we will probably get never even close to having a problem with either of them. By the way, Musk is still allowed to visit Germany, and we are currently debating whether our national-socialist party (AfD) should be forbidden or not. This is extremely difficult, although they are right-wing extremists and very likely not on the ground of the FDGO. People are really scared of NAZIs or having another antisemitic agitator again, although most of them simply underestimate the threat, as you can currently observe in the US.

 

[gleem]

A tolerant society should be tolerant, but only up to a point. If the intolerance is leading to the destruction of that society, it has an obligation to protect itself. It is similar to permitting protests until they threaten the order and safety of the community. When words portend violence, action is demanded.

 

[jack action]

A tolerant society should be tolerant, but only up to a point. If the intolerance is leading to the destruction of that society, it has an obligation to protect itself. It is similar to permitting protests until they threaten the order and safety of the community. When words portend violence, action is demanded.

The problem is that this logic can then be invoked by anyone in power, for anyone not agreeing with them. For example, when the police (ICE) is sent to arrest people who broke the law (illegal immigrants), and suddenly a simple citizen becomes a domestic terrorist for voluntarily getting in their way. Violence? I mean "they" executed Charlie Kirk, what more do you need to see anything but violence?

This woman was leading to the destruction of society, and society had an obligation to protect itself; the order and safety of the community were threatened.

Or was she? I guess it all depends from which side you look at things. Maybe your views are righter than theirs, so your views should have priority. Or was it them who thought that about their views? Anyway, someone's right and someone's wrong, and I would never do the wrong thing!

 

[fresh_42]

I think it's easier to make decisions when you can rely on written laws, not juries. And even court rulings can usually be challenged at multiple levels. This guarantees a certain amount of independence. And I dare to assert that our BVG has a better way of staffing than SCOTUS has.

Our laws are a direct consequence of our history. The constitution reflects many lessons learned. We have had the very liberal Weimarer Republic, and we have had the NAZI despotism. The 'I am right', so your opinion is 'forbidden' attitude alone won't work. It wouldn't even work at the executive level, let alone at the jurisdicative level. The real task is to keep the legislative level in bounds! The interconnections between the executive and legislative powers in the USA are far too close for my liking.

To change the German constitution requires a 2/3 majority, which is almost impossible to achieve in a multi-party system. I feel pretty comfortable with all these. And ... I have never met anyone who knows both the American and German systems and who hasn't said that they personally feel much freer in Germany than in the USA.

 

[Klystron]

People are really scared of NAZIs or having another antisemitic agitator again, although most of them simply underestimate the threat, as you can currently observe in the US.

People in the USA are wary of NAZIs and their kind such KuKluxKlan, Aryan Brotherhood American NAZI party, Bund this or that, various Leagues of illiterates and deplorables.

As a USAF veteran, I worked with avowed NAZIs. I even worked with a bossy Klan wizard from Middle America, a good RADAR manager (absent virulent racism), and a fair engineer though socially immature. Social encounters limited, no doubt, by hatred.

Years prior, after a Father-Son conversation concerning anti-semitism, I asked Father,

"So Dad, how should I deal with NAZIs?"

After reflection his eyes blazed, "Kill them!".

I'm thinking 'Thanks, Dad. Big help.'. No, I learned to adjust as with gnats infesting fresh fruit, sweaty testicles and inauthentic bleached blondes.

 

[fresh_42]

After reflection his eyes blazed, "Kill them!".

Just seen these days on FB:

30 years have passed!

This image has turned 30 years old, one of the most memorable scenes in football history. It shows Frenchman Éric Cantona breaking the script and kicking a racist fan who told him to go back to his country while giving a fascist salute.

"The only thing I regret is not hitting him harder. Kicking fascists is not something you enjoy every day," Cantona told the press when asked about the kick.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1236856675250262&set=a.1030596969209568

I like the answer your dad gave, although it is not really applicable. I like to phrase it as: "I can't possibly shoot as many idiots as I needed to." I once knew a punk who clothed himself quite gothically, and someone mistook that for a NAZI look and greeted him with "Heil Hitler" on the street. His answer: "Heil ihn doch selber". Not sure how to translate this play on words.

The plot for demagogues is, unfortunately, straightforward:

1) Blame a group, minorities preferred, that doesn't have a lobby.
2) Promise simple solutions for a made-up problem, even if it is neither a problem nor a solution.
3) Ignore existing laws.

This always works. People are susceptible to supposed solutions to their problems, even if one thing has nothing to do with the other. Simplicity is what counts. Strangely enough, and this is true here as it is in the USA, people are far more afraid of communists than they are of nationalists, as if these were an actual threat!

“The cheapest kind of pride, however, is national pride. For it betrays in the person afflicted with it a lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, since otherwise he would not resort to what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will, on the contrary, recognize the faults of his own nation most clearly, as he constantly has them before his eyes. But every miserable wretch who has nothing in the world of which he could be proud seizes upon the last resort of being proud of the nation to which he happens to belong. In this, he finds solace and is now gratefully prepared to defend tooth and nail all the faults and follies that are characteristic of it.” (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860)

Source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9539808-die-wohlfeilste-art-des-stolzes-hingegen-ist-der-nationalstolz-denn

That is the real danger posed by Trump. He normalizes violence as long as it is perpetrated by the right (both meanings!) criminals. And it is not easy for a society to get rid of those KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, and newly ICE agents, once you accept them as normal. We have been through this process, and I pray we won't have to again. I live in a city with approximately 50% of its population being migrants or foreigners. We get along. Live and let live works astonishingly well. People are people, and 99% of them are quite ordinary people, regardless of the papers or the history they have. The remaining percent are idiots, again independent of their heritage. The last thing we need here is populists trying to divide us.

 

[MindlessPieces]

There is a difference between intolerance and discrimination.

Should we be intolerant of criminal behaviour, of violence and bullying? Yes, most likely a governed society should have measures to stop or punish criminal behaviour, violence and bullying.

In general people in society should be safe.

When it comes to the public market place, people in society should be able to purchase goods and services that are available for the public. i.e. no whites only drinking fountains, no refusing to sell wedding cakes to gay people. Government employees should not be able to force their personal biases and personal discrimination onto people, e.g. a Government official should not be able to refuse a wedding application based on their own religious beliefs, they shouldn't be able to refuse giving patients a morning after pill based on their own religious beliefs, nor should they deride or give the patients a lecture.

On the other hand, a Church shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages. A church is a private club and can make their own decisions based on their rules for their own rituals and sacraments.

Sports organisations shouldn't be forced by government into how they regulate their own sporting divisions, e.g. if a chess organisation wants to allow men and women to compete in the same division then that is up to them, same for track and field organisations, rugby, boxing , you name it, should be up to the sporting codes to decide, not government.

 

[Grinkle]

a private club

In the US, how to draw the line between public and private is where the arguments usually occur.

Is a Church that is allowed to not pay taxes (in the US Churches are an instance of non-profit organizations and exempt from taxation) still considered a wholly private organization, even though they receive the publicly funded benefit of tax exemption?

The answer is legally yes in the US, as far as I know, but in my opinion reasonable people can disagree as to whether a tax exemption comes with some strings attached - if even partially publicly funded, perhaps the institution should be held to serve all of the public with whatever services it is that they provide.

When I see institutions like Harvard being attacked by the Federal government for their differences of opinion in what is socially desirable, and the attacks take the from of sanctions vs special tax status and grant money the hypocrisy is, in my eyes, clearly exposed.

 

[MindlessPieces]

In the US, how to draw the line between public and private is where the arguments usually occur.

Is a Church that is allowed to not pay taxes (in the US Churches are an instance of non-profit organizations and exempt from taxation) still considered a wholly private organization, even though they receive the publicly funded benefit of tax exemption?

I don't think Churches or other religious organisations should get tax breaks simply because they are religious.
Tax breaks should be based on charity work, and for that, they should be required to open their books so that the charity donations can be assessed.

When a religious organisation runs a school or a hospital, it should be taxed as any private school or hospital is taxed. It is a business after all. Certainly not a charity.

The answer is legally yes in the US, as far as I know, but in my opinion reasonable people can disagree as to whether a tax exemption comes with some strings attached - if even partially publicly funded, perhaps the institution should be held to serve all of the public with whatever services it is that they provide.

If an organisation gets public funding in terms of tax breaks or grants etc, they should be held to account. Books should be opened and scrutinised. Also that organisation should be held to account for alignment to some public standards. e.g. certain anti corruption measures such as employs need to declare any gifts they receive, ... In terms of anti discrimination I would consider that organisations used to help women in abusive situations should get government assistance. In situations where minorities are poorly represented in certain areas such as education or crime, I think it makes sense for government to provide assistance to those minorities to help lift the situation. So some discrimination is warranted for valid reasons.
For situations such as a whites only golf course where whites are the dominant race, and aren't under represented then I think it ought to be difficult for government to offer any assistence.

Regarding Family planning organisations which can help out young families or people trying to avoid producing children, to me it makes a lot of sense for the Govt to provide assistance, but I understand that a religious person that equates abortion or even the morning after pill with "murder", they might not want govt funds going to that organisation. I think society benefits from family planning services, but that one is debatable.

When I see institutions like Harvard being attacked by the Federal government for their differences of opinion in what is socially desirable, and the attacks take the from of sanctions vs special tax status and grant money the hypocrisy is, in my eyes, clearly exposed.

Yeah, it gets to a point where there needs to be some rules on government, they shouldn't be extorting organisations and they shouldn't be limiting freedom of speech. Even with regards to govt intervening in sports codes, trying to stop trans-athletes or trans sportspeople. I think it should be upto the sport codes to come up with their policy independent from government. We should be striving for minimal government, not BIG government. Govt shouldn't be forcing any morals or ideals (religious or otherwise) down people's throats.

 

[Patxitxi]

I don't think Churches or other religious organisations should get tax breaks simply because they are religious.
Tax breaks should be based on charity work, and for that, they should be required to open their books so that the charity donations can be assessed.

When a religious organisation runs a school or a hospital, it should be taxed as any private school or hospital is taxed. It is a business after all. Certainly not a charity.



If an organisation gets public funding in terms of tax breaks or grants etc, they should be held to account. Books should be opened and scrutinised. Also that organisation should be held to account for alignment to some public standards. e.g. certain anti corruption measures such as employs need to declare any gifts they receive, ... In terms of anti discrimination I would consider that organisations used to help women in abusive situations should get government assistance. In situations where minorities are poorly represented in certain areas such as education or crime, I think it makes sense for government to provide assistance to those minorities to help lift the situation. So some discrimination is warranted for valid reasons.
For situations such as a whites only golf course where whites are the dominant race, and aren't under represented then I think it ought to be difficult for government to offer any assistence.

Regarding Family planning organisations which can help out young families or people trying to avoid producing children, to me it makes a lot of sense for the Govt to provide assistance, but I understand that a religious person that equates abortion or even the morning after pill with "murder", they might not want govt funds going to that organisation. I think society benefits from family planning services, but that one is debatable.

Yeah, it gets to a point where there needs to be some rules on government, they shouldn't be extorting organisations and they shouldn't be limiting freedom of speech. Even with regards to govt intervening in sports codes, trying to stop trans-athletes or trans sportspeople. I think it should be upto the sport codes to come up with their policy independent from government. We should be striving for minimal government, not BIG government. Govt shouldn't be forcing any morals or ideals (religious or otherwise) down people's throats.

I don't think a direct special action its needed, in the United States, words that portend or threaten violence are not protected by the First Amendment only when they fall into specific, narrow legal categories.

Generally, speech that constitutes a "true threat" or "incitement" is not protected and can lead to criminal charges. The problem is that instead of "can" it should be "always leads to".

Thus, in my opinion, special action is needed only in insuring that the courts do their job and DO NOT PROTECT incitement when it falls into their own opinion of politics.

The assault of January 6th on the US Capitol and the infamous subsequent pardon are the perfect example of what I'm saying.

And those were the words of the current King Ahole The Humble! ;-)

In my view these problems should not be in the "PHILOSOPHY MATTERS " section it should be in the "your complicit silence leads to crimes against humanity" section. If you follow my drift?