SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Judge:-30-days-or-$100?-Arrestee:-I'll-take-the-$100 dept.
The New York Times is reporting on a disturbing courtroom scene in rural Alabama. A circuit judge apparently required those who owe fines to give blood or face incarceration.
From the article:
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,” began Judge Wiggins, a circuit judge here in rural Alabama since 1999. “For your consideration, there’s a blood drive outside,” he continued, according to a recording of the hearing. “If you don’t have any money, go out there and give blood and bring in a receipt indicating you gave blood.”
For those who had no money or did not want to give blood, the judge concluded: “The sheriff has enough handcuffs.”
[...] The dozens of offenders who showed up that day, old and young, filed out of the Perry County courthouse and waited their turn at a mobile blood bank parked in the street. They were told to bring a receipt to the clerk showing they had given a pint of blood, and in return they would receive a $100 credit toward their fines — and be allowed to go free.
[...] On Monday, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed an ethics complaint against Judge Wiggins, saying he had committed “a violation of bodily integrity.” The group also objected to the hearing beyond the matter of blood collection, calling the entire proceeding unconstitutional.
Payment-due hearings like this one are part of a new initiative by Alabama’s struggling courts to raise money by aggressively pursuing outstanding fines, restitution, court costs and lawyer fees. Many of those whose payments are sought in these hearings have been found at one point to be indigent, yet their financial situations often are not considered when they are summoned for outstanding payments.
Is it ethical to require blood donations under any circumstance?
Is the threat of jail for non-compliance (given that, theoretically, we don't have debtor's prison in the U.S.) even constitutional?
Is this a Fourth Amendment issue?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 21 2015, @11:39AM
On the one hand, yes, some of what the SPLC opposes falls under free speech (e.g. racist song lyrics).
On the other hand, most of the groups that it monitors are very explicitly racists or religious bigots (e.g. local chapters of the KKK or Aryan Nation). And while being a member of these groups or being racist is legal, many of these groups' activities (arson, assaults, murders, etc) are not, and information that they collect can be valuable to the police for solving some of those crimes.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @11:52AM
Accept they've basically been handed a license to decided what is and isn't hate speech. So if you disagree with ultra-left politics (and I'm a liberal), they label you as part of a conservative right-wing hate group. Which seems to give a lot of REALLY hateful people a free license to go after you, dox you, calling your employer and family and friends and threatening them all becomes free game. Because, hey, it's fine to hate a hate group. Even if/when they aren't doing anything hateful aside from disagreeing on the interwebz.
SPLC get a lot of things wrong, they shouldn't be trusted as the soul proprietors of "moral authority"
I seldom agree with Ethanol-fueled, but I agree with him on SPLC
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @12:51PM
I'm pretty sure this post is hate speech. Hold on...
New entry: vanderhoth
This person is obviously a bigot and also a terrorist. He leaves comments full of hate speech on a Linux supremacist website known as 'Soylent Blues'. Stay away at all costs!
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:29PM
I have a very hard time believing that you're a liberal if you're talking about the SPLC like that. That's the kind of thing that the GOP says about the SPLC because it's easier than admitting that they're in bed with hate groups.
If you're going to claim that people and groups are being listed for disagreeing, then you're going to have to cough up some examples. I haven't seen any examples of note. You get a few marginal cases where they're just espousing hateful views and where the purpose of the organization is based on that, but in general, it takes some rationalization to think that a group whose sole purpose is to spread hatred and fear isn't a hate group in need of monitoring.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:16PM
I'm definitely pretty far left of center, but way to prove my point. I disagree, think SPLC shouldn't be the end all be all of "moral authority", get labeled as a right-wing. Maybe I would vote conservative if the CPC wasn't run by an anti-science nut case that's handed our country over to private industries, but I didn't.
FYI, for starters, I'm Canadian, even our conservatives are more liberal than American democrats. I voted Liberal in our election on Monday, support gay marriage, social assistance, single payer health care and the rights of people to choose and be respected for whatever gender pronouns they want to use. Not that ANY of that is your business or should be any reason to accept or dismiss my opinions on the SPLC.
I simply don't believe in labeling people you disagree with as an excuse to dismiss their arguments. As someone who's been following GamerGate for the last year, which is about exposing shoddy clickbait journalism, I can tell you there are groups that are just disagreeing on the internet that some ultra-left ideologists are trying to put down by any means necessary.
THEY are the embarrassments to liberals and will take anything and twist it into some gender / race / homophobia claim just to have an excuse to dismiss a persons arguments and claims. That's not to say those things AREN'T issues, but they aren't the only issues and certainly not an excuse not to discuss OTHER issues.
There was a point last year where these ideologist tried to have GamerGate listed as a right-wing hate group with the SPLC.
And that's another thing, I might not agree with all "right-wing" politics, but at what point did it become such taboo to have some right leaning beliefs? All the sudden it seems like anyone that's not part of the ultra-left must be a right-wing bigot, and people on the left are forced to constantly reaffirm their left leaning ideals or be dismissed / labeled as part of a hate group.
Why is the left turning into such a cult? It's as bad as the religious right was a decade ago. It's ok not to agree with someone and still listen to them, or agree with them on some points while disagreeing on others. You don't need to call someone a misogynists / racists / homophobe / right-winger to disagree with them.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:52PM
So in other words, you're a foreigner that doesn't understand the context and would like to pretend like this isn't a serious problem. As far as a rebuttal goes, this one stinks. It just reinforces the notion that you're not a liberal. Or at least not the sort of liberal I've ever encountered. This is some far right bullshit.
Anyways, the SPLC is hardly the sole arbitrator of morality as you seem to put it. They spend their own money keeping tabs on groups that the government won't keep tabs on. The Family Research Council is a good example of a group whose purpose is to spread hatred and misunderstanding with lies that isn't being tracked by the feds, but needs to be. If you wait until groups cross the line from hate speech into actual hate action, that's ridiculous. You'd never know they were there. You have to start monitoring them when they start spreading hateful propaganda. Most of them will probably never engage in terrorist actions, but some of them will and it's important to have them on the radar in case they do.
I'm in favor of free speech, that's why I support monitoring of these groups rather than sending them to prison. But, it's completely insane to suggest that we shouldn't be labeling hate speech and monitoring the groups engaging in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:54PM
LOL, that was quick. Nice to see that the other side has such witty response to the obvious truth.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:00PM
"So in other words, you're a foreigner that doesn't understand the context"
So in other words, you'll look for any reason you can find to completely ignore people that disagree with you and/or agree with people you don't agree with. I'm guessing had I been like, "HA HA, Ethanol-fueled is such a block head", it wouldn't have mattered what my political leanings or country of origin were, so long as I was agreeing with you.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:34PM
I read the post and it reflected a complete lack of understanding of the social construct in which this is happening. I don't comment on the internal policies of Canada because I'm not in a position to understand or appreciate the context within which they are being made.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:19PM
> voted Liberal
> support gay marriage
> social assistance
> single payer health care and
> the rights of people to choose and be respected for whatever gender pronouns they want to use
It just reinforces the notion that you're not a liberal.
Yeah, totally doesn't sound like any liberals I know. Normally they vote republican, hate gays, think what you earn over your life time is all you need to retire on, believe the quality of your health care should be directly related to how much money you have and believe trans people are mentally ill.
You totally won the internet there douche wad.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:57AM
"They spend their own money keeping tabs on groups that the government won't keep tabs on."
That is inaccurate. SPLC is a professional fund raising organization - they don't spend "their own money". They spend money collected from gullible people. In fact, they can be branded as "fraudulent" because they don't spend all that money they rake in. Instead, they maintain lavish homes, offices, lifetyles, and vehicles for the inner clique.
As for keeping an eye on persons and groups which the government is unworried about - especially in this day and age of paranoia and "turrists" behind ever lamp post - that's just wrong. It's like, the Stasi isn't doing good enough a job, SPLC has to second guess the Stasi? Left and right alike has begun to fight back against Homeland Security, but you support SPLC which goes beyond HS efforts? Huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:37AM
Still waiting to see those examples Francis asked for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:36AM
You seem to be saying that those 2 are one and the same.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
"Liberal Democracy" is a Right-Center thing. [politicalcompass.org]
Taken to its natural conclusion, it's what's gotten The Working Class into a serious bind over the last several decades. [fpif.org] (orig) [fpif.org]
It accepts the concept of employees and a separate ownership class as normal.
It accepts things like the Electoral College as "democratic".
That is NOT "Left".
An actual Leftist (an Anarchist aka "without rulers") holds that government should be as local as is possible.
An Ultra-Leftist (a Communist|Socialist|Marxist) also completely rejects the exploitive system called Capitalism.
A Leftist holds that collective ownership of the means of production is essential for a stable society. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
The Cuban gov't accepts small privately-owned companies--but doesn't allow them to become a chain-store operation...and certainly not a megacorporation.
Cuba also encourages worker-owned cooperatives.
At a national level, that's the closest any country has come to actual "Socialism".
Northern Italy and some parts of Spain have clumps of Socialism at a more regional level.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:25AM
what's gotten The Working Class into a serious bind over the last several decades. [googleusercontent.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:22AM
According to the political compass, which I've done previous to this discussion, I fall in between Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, closer to Nader a little more libertarian.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:46PM
In that case, you have miscategorized yourself.
The winners of the recent election in Canada call themselves "liberal".
What you will see from them is continued war and continued austerity.
Those are NOT Leftist positions.
Liberals occupy the wishy-washy Center, these days mostly biased toward the Right.
If you are opposed to wealth inequality; a class of idle rich; a gov't that doesn't guarantee a proper education, universal healthcare, and a job with a living wage for every one of its people; and eroding civil liberties, you should be calling yourself a Socialist or a Marxist or a Leftist.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:02PM
You should take another look at SPLC. They monitor damned near everyone and everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_hate_groups [wikipedia.org]
"The SPLC counted 1,007 groups as active hate groups in the United States in 2012. Only organizations and their chapters known to be active during 2012 are included.[11]"
Funny thing - they include a number of anti-Muslim groups, but I don't see any anti-Jewish groups listed. There is a whole list of Catholic organizations - imagine that. They don't like Catholics.
Ahhhhh - I see that I was being just a little bit unfair to SPLC. They have a long list of white groups they don't like. I'm relieved that there is at least a short list of black groups they don't like - such as the New Black Panthers. Maybe they aren't total racists.
One thing's for certain - I don't want to live in SPLC's idea of Utopia.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:18PM
Then you didn't read the list you linked to, because there are whole sections on Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, both of which any reasonable person would see as anti-Jewish. In addition, many KKK branches are anti-Jewish and some are anti-Catholic.
And a bunch of Protestant organizations (again, the KKK falls into that). And I should point out that the Catholic organizations listed definitely do not have the sanction of most of the Catholic Church hierarchy - these groups formed because they saw the Catholic Church as too tolerant, because apparently "Love thy neighbor" isn't part of their version of Christianity.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:35PM
Indeed, the SPLC does good work in an area that's really tough to monitor.
I'm not surprised that people get taken in by these hate groups as the membership tends to skew smart. They have some rather sophisticated arguments about why what they're doing is not just not bigoted, but why you'd be an idiot not to join their bigoted cause. It's not surprising that people wouldn't notice these groups anymore or wouldn't agree with the classification, you can't get away with burning crosses on people's lawns or lynching them anymore because society recognizes such overt activities as deeply problematic.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:17PM
I should have included this in my first response, but I'm also really going to have to challenge your idea of "damned near everyone and everything". I mean, going down the list, we have:
- Groups that hate black people for being black
- Groups that hate white people for being white
- Groups that hate LGBT people for existing
- Groups that hate Jews, Muslims, and/or the wrong kind of Christian for following those religions
- Groups that hate immigrants
Now, you described that as "damned near everyone". But it's not: There are 300 million Americans. Even if we take all these groups' proclaimed membership as accurate, at most you're looking at a few hundred thousand active bigots (e.g. there are fewer than 5,000 Klan members in the US). That's not even 1% of the population. So why did you see it as "damned near everyone" when it wasn't even remotely close to that?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:42PM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/03/26/fbi-dumps-southern-poverty-law-center/ [breitbart.com]
The SPLC is a hate group, in and of itself, enabling terrorists to attack Christians. And, the FBI doesn't want the SPLC to be affiliated with them.
"SPLC has come under severe criticism from the left and the right in recent years.
Writing in the left-wing website Counterpunch, Alexander Coburn called SPLC founder Morris Dees “king of the hate business.” Coburn wrote, “Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with Dees’ fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC.” In fact, so prolific is Dees at direct mail that he is in the Direct Marketing Association Hall of Fame."
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/answering_our_critics/southern_poverty_law_center_splc_info.html [thesocialcontract.com]
From the article When a hate crime is something to love:
...Morris Dees [founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center] won a judgment for a black woman whose son was killed by Klansmen. She received $51,875 as settlement. Mr. Dees, according to an investigation by the Montgomery Advertiser, pulled in $9 million from fund-raising solicitation letters that featured a particularly gruesome photograph of the grieving mother's son. Mr. Dees, who pays himself an annual salary of $275,000, offered the grieving mother none of the $9 million her son's death made for him.
Mr. Dees, in fact, earns - or is paid, which is not necessarily the same thing - more than nearly any officer of other advocacy groups surveyed by the National Journal, more than the chairmen of the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Children's Defense Fund.
"You are a fraud and a con man," Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, which actually takes on dozens of death-penalty appeals for poor blacks every year, once told him. "You spend so much, accomplish so little, and promote yourself so shamelessly."...
White guilt can be manipulated with black pain, but it has to be done carefully. It's a sordid scam. Some people would call what Morris Dees does a hate crime, but it's a living, and a very good one.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:09PM
> On the one hand, yes, some of what the SPLC opposes falls under free speech (e.g. racist song lyrics).
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. The SPLC is not pushing to make their speech illegal. It is judging them on the content of their speech. That is, in fact, a bedrock principle of freedom of speech - you are able to say whatever you want and everybody else is able to decide what they think of you based on the content of your speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:57PM
I see no problem with that. You can't combat hate groups without targeting the propaganda. If this were the government doing it, I'd be very much opposed to it. But, this is a private institution that has no power to enforce their rules. All they can do is name and shame groups that are engaged in this kind of behavior. If people don't agree, then nothing happens.
Granted people aren't as thoughtful about what is and isn't appropriate as they should be, but you make it sound like there's something wrong with calling out organizations for obvious bigotry.