SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We've had multiple submissions on the confrontation in Charlottesville, Virginia between white supremacists and counter-protesters. We lead off with a submission about the altercation which culminated with a car driven into a crowd which left 1 person dead and 19 injured. Then we continue with GoDaddy informing dailystormer.com — a white supremacist web site which called for the rally — that they had 24 hours to find another registrar for their site. They signed up with Google's domain registration service. Now there are reports that Google, too, has dropped the registration.
This story could very well cause a lot of heat, but it is my hope we can look beyond the details of this particular situation and focus discussion on the overriding questions of freedom of speech/publication raised by one of the submitters and the implications it may lead to. This saying comes to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Terrorism in Charlottesville: 1 Dead, 19 Injured
ProPublica reports:
Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville, Virginia
At about 10 a.m. [August 12], at one of countless such confrontations, an angry mob of white supremacists formed a battle line across from a group of counter-protesters, many of them older and gray-haired, who had gathered near a church parking lot. On command from their leader, the young men charged and pummeled their ideological foes with abandon. One woman was hurled to the pavement, and the blood from her bruised head was instantly visible.
Standing nearby, an assortment of Virginia State Police troopers and Charlottesville police wearing protective gear watched silently from behind an array of metal barricades--and did nothing.
[...] the white supremacists who flooded into the city's Emancipation Park--a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee sits in the center of the park--had spent months openly planning for war. The Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi website, encouraged rally attendees to bring shields, pepper spray, and fascist flags and flagpoles. A prominent racist podcast told its listeners to come carrying guns.
[...] the white supremacists who showed up in Charlottesville did indeed come prepared for violence. Many wore helmets and carried clubs, medieval-looking round wooden shields, and rectangular plexiglass shields, similar to those used by riot police.
[...] The police did little to stop the bloodshed. Several times, a group of assault-rifle-toting militia members from New York State, wearing body armor and desert camo, played a more active role in breaking up fights.
[...] The skirmishes culminated in what appears to have been an act of domestic terrorism, with a driver ramming his car into a crowd of anti-racist activists on a busy downtown street, killing one and injuring 19 according to the latest information from city officials. Charlottesville authorities tonight reported that a 20-year-old Ohio man had been arrested and had been charged with murder.
[...] A good strategy, [said Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor who has worked on police reform efforts in Los Angeles], is to make clashes less likely by separating the two sides physically, with officers forming a barrier between them. "Create a human barrier so the flash points are reduced as quickly as possible."
GoDaddy Stomps 'Daily Stormer' -- Site Moves to Google
The Washington Post reports GoDaddy bans neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer for disparaging woman killed at Charlottesville rally:
After months of criticism that GoDaddy was providing a platform for hate speech, the Web hosting company announced late Sunday that it will no longer house the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that promotes white supremacist and white nationalist ideas.
[...] We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service.
— GoDaddy (@GoDaddy) August 14, 2017
[...] In the Daily Stormer post[1], [Andrew] Angelin characterized [victim Heather] Heyer as dying in a "road rage incident." He said she was a "drain on society" and disparaged her appearance. "Most people are glad she is dead," he wrote.
"@GoDaddy you host The Daily Stormer — they posted this on their site," Twitter user Amy Siskind said in an appeal to the Web hosting company. "Please retweet if you think this hate should be taken down & banned."
[...] GoDaddy has previously said that the content, however "tasteless" and "ignorant," is protected by the First Amendment. The company told the Daily Beast in July that a Daily Stormer article threatening to "track down" the family members of CNN staffers did not violate Domains by Proxy's terms of service.
After the incidents in Charlottesville it seems GoDaddy have decided, one can gather from and after a massive amount of pressure, to no longer provide Domain name access to the Daily Stormer. While a private company is free to do whatever they like, I wonder if there will or might be further implications. I think the interesting question here isn't what happened in Charlottesville or what kind of stories they provide over at the Daily Stormer -- they might be or are a complete shitfest filled with neo-nazi-news for all I know. The interesting aspect is if companies should now monitor their customers, which it seems the Daily Stormer has been one for years, and ban or block customers that no longer align with company beliefs or that other customers find offensive. It seems the Daily Stormer has previously posted "tasteless" and "ignorant" stories that one can only assume have not aligned with GoDaddy policy or Terms of Service, but this one was somehow over the line and the straw that broke the camel's back?
I'm fairly sure the Daily Stormer won't be knocked offline or anything, there will always be someone willing to host them somewhere. So today they try to knock a neo-nazi site offline, I doubt many people will lose any sleep over that, but who is going to be next? Is this part of the ramping up of the current online-twitter-socialweb-culture? Is there a slippery slope here?
Google Domains, GoDaddy blacklist white supremacist site Daily Stormer
Ars Technica is reporting that Google Domains and GoDaddy have blacklisted white supremacist site Daily Stormer:
The article prompted a response from the site's domain registrar, GoDaddy. "We informed The Daily Stormer that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service," GoDaddy wrote in a tweet late Sunday night.
On Monday, the Daily Stormer switched its registration to Google's domain service. Within hours, Google announced a cancellation of its own. "We are cancelling Daily Stormer's registration with Google Domains for violating our terms of service," the company wrote in an statement emailed to Ars.
[...] A lot of outlets covering this controversy described GoDaddy, somewhat misleadingly, as the Daily Stormer's hosting provider. But GoDaddy wasn't storing or distributing the content on the Daily Stormer website. It was the Daily Stormer's registrar, which is the company that handles registration of "dailystormer.com" in the domain name system, the global database that connects domain names like "arstechnica.com" to numeric IP addresses.
GoDaddy has faced pressure for months from anti-racist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League to drop the Daily Stormer as a customer. But until this weekend, GoDaddy resisted that pressure.
"GoDaddy doesn't host The Daily Stormer's content on its servers," the investigative site Reveal reported in May. "Because it provides only the domain name, the company says it has a higher standard for terminating service."
"We need to evaluate what level of effect we can actually have on the abuse that's actually going on," said Ben Butler, director of GoDaddy's digital crimes unit, in a May interview with Reveal. "As a domain name registrar, if we take the domain name down, that domain name stops working. But the content is still out there, live on a server connected to the Internet that can be reached via an IP address or forwarded from another domain name. The actual content is not something we can touch by turning on or off the domain name service."
But GoDaddy abruptly changed its stance on Sunday evening. What changed GoDaddy's mind? In a statement to Techcrunch, GoDaddy said: "given this latest article comes on the immediate heels of a violent act, we believe this type of article could incite additional violence, which violates our terms of service."
Reading GoDaddy's terms of service, this seems to support their stance that they could suspend the domain registration:
9. RESTRICTION OF SERVICES; RIGHT OF REFUSAL
[...] You agree that GoDaddy, in its sole discretion and without liability to you, may refuse to accept the registration of any domain name. GoDaddy also may in its sole discretion and without liability to you delete the registration of any domain name during the first thirty (30) days after registration has taken place. GoDaddy may also cancel the registration of a domain name, after thirty (30) days, if that name is being used, as determined by GoDaddy in its sole discretion, in association with spam or morally objectionable activities. Morally objectionable activities will include, but not be limited to:
- Activities prohibited by the laws of the United States and/or foreign territories in which you conduct business;
- Activities designed to encourage unlawful behavior by others, such as hate crimes, terrorism and child pornography; and
- Activities designed to harm or use unethically minors in any way.
As of the time of this being written, it appears that the Daily Stormer domain (dailystormer.com) is still being hosted by Google:
Domain Name: dailystormer.com
Registry Domain ID: 1787753602_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com
Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com
Updated Date: 2017-08-14T14:51:45Z
Creation Date: 2013-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2020-03-20T22:43:18Z
Registrar: Google Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 895
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday August 14 2017, @11:07PM (34 children)
It's no different to a gang of white supremacist dipshits walking into a printer's shop and ordering a bunch of swastika pamphlets. I know I wouldn't complain at the print shop owners for turning them down. Take your filthy ideology and tainted money elsewhere, nazi scum.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Monday August 14 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)
By that analogy they could buy their own printing press and self publish. I don't know their ISP's policies but they could self host their site if they so desire. Domain names might be difficult to self host (I'm pushing the limits of my web hosting knowledge).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 14 2017, @11:19PM
They're not otherwise we wouldn't be hosting ours. Registering a name is another story entirely but nobody said they had to register with a US registrar.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:12PM (12 children)
What about someone turning down baking a cake?
What about someone refusing to serve a cop?
It is ether all acceptable or none of it is.
I swear this past election is making me look like a conspiracy nutter. This feels like gaslighting. I am getting the same icky feeling. Watch the media connect this to Trump. Too late they already did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:21PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:02AM (1 child)
I moderated this away from flamebait because ^this is what the debate is about:
It is ether (sic) all acceptable or none of it is.
What should be silenced and what not? DRAW the line: should a Nazi supporter draw the line? A gay man? A 40 year old woman with the mental capacity of a 12-15 year old?
That's mein Kampf: my struggle. As I said above in comments, this dailystormer site is horrible, but who has the right to shut them down?
If you were to think black people are a drain on society, should you be allowed to say this and shut down people who protest what you say?
If you were to think white people are a drain on society, should you be allowed to say this and shut down people who protest what you say?
Drawing a line is tough when you support freedom.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:45AM
Generally having an opinion is fine, "I wish there were no blacks as they're a drain on society and things would be better if they all dropped dead". Whereas actively inciting violence isn't, "Lets grab our shields and clubs and do something about those blacks who are a drain on society".
Of course somewhere in there, the line gets blurry.
Freedom ca be messy as there are so many freedoms and they often conflict.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:48AM (6 children)
Read up on the right to refuse service.
The right to refuse service allows a business to refuse service with exceptions. You can't discriminate based on religion, race, color, country of origin, and disability. Those are called protected classes. California extends this to include things like sexual orientation, gender identity, unconventional dress, and political affiliation. So it sounds like refusing to print flyers for nazis may or nay not be illegal depending on the jurisdiction.
But you can also refuse service if the business owner feels that the actions taken could harm them or cause trouble. So going back to your example, in california you might get in trouble for not serving a group of PEACEFUL nazi's in a restaurant. But if said nazi's cause any sort of trouble, then there is a reason to refuse service. That can also include paraphernalia that can cause other patrons to become upset or create an atmosphere of discomfort. Meaning, if you walk into a restaurant with a big swastika on your shirt, they can refuse you service.
Most of this is black and white, some of it however, is grey. But what about printing flyers? The same laws applies only this time the business owner can cite the fact that cooperating with nazis is something which would hurt their business image. It could also indirectly harm them by making them a target for threats. And let's be real here, printing hate speech is very different than baking a fucking wedding cake for two people celebrating a happy life event (which is what this all stems from). And anyone refusing service to a cop is also treading in legal water. The cop could sue and the case brought to court.
You sound paranoid. Relax, sit back and do some reading. You'll find most of this is pretty black and white for the most part. Grey in some areas, yes. But that is why we have courts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by helel on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:16AM (2 children)
That doesn't really sound black and white at all.
If an individual wearing a swastika is behaving peaceably why should they be refused service? How is that any different then an individual with a pro-choice shirt? Both make some subset of the population highly uncomfortable and those so offended would in both cases describe the shirt as promoting violence.
A printer might argue that serving nazi clientele could hurt their business and bring threats but in many parts of the country a bakery could make the same claim if one of their cakes were to be seen at a gay marriage.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:30AM
It isn't. There are enough nutjobs out there that wearing a shirt with an extremist message is equivalent to lighting an open fire on a total fire ban day.
Lost clients is a personal decision about where THEY draw the line. Their reaction to threats depends on how good the police force is. But they're both in the same boat.
The only way of guaranteeing everybody service is to have a government run provider of said service that isn't worried about losing clients, paid for by tax dollars (that IS the government's job).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:52AM
If the image is offensive and is upsetting others then that is damaging to business and you can force them to leave. It's no different than my shit stirring friend who wore his "jesus is a cunt" t shirt to McDonalds and was asked to leave by management. People were pissed and the right to refuse service was valid because that did not violate the federal law.
Let's be real here, one is a hate group, the other is a hated group. Which of the two do you see as being more damaging to business?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:15AM (2 children)
LOL, The irony, it burns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:10PM (1 child)
It's called sarcasm.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:17PM
Please review Poe's Law [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:04AM (1 child)
Answer: we have protected classes of people / products, and if the class list needs to be updated then it will. That is actually what society is all about, social contracts.
This is entirely the reason why we have the concept of "law" and a supreme court to rule on matters according to the times. We have decided that your religious beliefs are not a valid reason to discriminate against a gay couple, although I wonder about exceptions for publicly displayed disclaimers like "no shoes, no shirt, no service".
Anyway, the false equivalency that has become so popular has got to go. "It is ether all acceptable or none of it is." Wrong. We already have areas of speech that are specifically excluded. With GoDaddy they are claiming the site violated ToS, so then it becomes a court case for experts to figure out and set new precedent. Should a domain registrar be considered an essential activity that can't exclude customers for political / moral opinions?
As for Trump, the dude has so many shady connections and is an obvious conman who can't help but lie through his teeth. Exposing his prejudiced support base that he refuses to actually condemn until his administration wears him down is the least he deserves for all the shitty stuff he's said and done. He didn't drive the car, but he sure as hell got the nazi segment of society fully energized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:52AM
So where are these social contracts I've agreed to? I want to re-read the terms and check for my signature.
Contracts of adherence are invalid.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:08AM (18 children)
Oh, but wait - what was your position on the Christian wedding cake people who refused to make a gay wedding cake?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:55AM (17 children)
They weren't being very Christ like?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:20AM (16 children)
Or, maybe they were being very Christ like. There is not one single passage in the Bible that approves of homoseuality. There are many passages that condemn it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:02AM (12 children)
Divorce too. Depending on which Gospel you read, Jesus is either totally opposed (Mark) or opposed in all cases except cheating (Matthew). But I don't see a helluva lotta Christian bakers telling divorced people "NO CAKE FOR JOO!"
So they're not being Christ-like so much as hypocritical.
As for me and my girlfriend, I can bake juuuust fine, so no skin off my nose if some bigoted baker says lesbians give her the icks.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:38AM (11 children)
"But I don't see a helluva lotta Christian bakers telling divorced people "NO CAKE FOR JOO!""
You aren't very familiar with very many Catholics then. In the wider Christian community, you can find plenty of churches that ostracize divorcees. No cake? How about no wedding. Or, find a more hypocritical minister willing to perform the wedding, or just go with a Justice of the Peace wedding.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:09AM (9 children)
"The wider Christian community," at least in the US, considers Catholics vile heretics who will spend eternity screaming and writhing in Hellfire. Ask me how I know (hint: was raised Catholic). Try again. Or, y'know, don't.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:08AM (8 children)
That explains a lot about Azuma . . .
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:15AM
I was raised Catholic, and twice a day, I pray: "Fuck God!". They tell me I will come back. Not likely. What were we talking about? Oh, right, Runaway's psychological problems. Well, I recommend Water Hemlock [wikipedia.org], with repeated doses if necessary. Cures almost everything. Worked well for a friend of mine [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:28PM (6 children)
What does it explain, precisely? Why I felt the need to spend, as of this writing, almost 12 years studying Church history, Koine Greek, apologetics, counter-apologetics, logic, moral philosophy, and comparative religion?
I'd have made an excellent Jesuit except for the whole no-Y-chromosome thing. That, and thinking for myself.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:19PM (5 children)
Catholics are broken. And, that puts you at a huge disadvantage.
As for a missing chromosome or two, you could try Amazon.
And, thinking for yourself is dangerous in this day and age. Well, actually, any day and age.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:55PM (4 children)
If it helps, I'd effectively deconverted before confirmation. I was never an atheist but I discovered Paine in junior high and read voraciously.
How are Catholics, every single one of them, to a man/woman, "broken?" And if your answer is "They're not Protestants (like I am)" I'll spit right in your eye.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:04PM (3 children)
Doctrine and dogma. Jesus Christ didn't leave a deputy behind to take his place, did he? Yet, we have this infallibility of the pope and all the rest of that nonsense. The church can do no wrong, blah blah blah, ad nauseum. When you cut to the chase, the Catholic church established that whole "buy your way into heaven" thing. Buy those votive candles, buy absolution from the priest at confession, buy buy buy. The church has taken the place of the money changers, and Jesus would NOT be happy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:11AM
You sound like me in 4th grade CCD, you know that? :) One of the nuns actually spat at me "You....you little *Protestant!*" once after I questioned some aspects of the liturgy that I hadn't found in the Bible. From reading it. Myself. Cover to cover. At age 9.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @09:36AM (1 child)
Ummm, "Peter, you are my rock, and on you I build my church." Jesus
My Gawd, Runaway1956! Are you really this fucking stupid and uneducated? I thought your ignorance of Islam was due to Right wing fear spreading, and general lack of education in American, and even more in Arkansas, but you appear to be equally ignorant of the basis tenets of Christianity! So, tell us, what are the first five, no, just four, amendments to the Constitution of the United States? Who is buried in Grant's tomb? And what is the Hertz frequency of the US electrical grid?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:37PM
Peter wasn't nominated and confirmed as The New Jesus. Peter didn't do a lot of miracles, did he? We don't pray to Peter, Paul, or Mary. (Some of us still listen to their music though!) There was no deputy to Jesus, and IF there were, it would probably have been Paul. Uneducated, you say? Look above at Zumi's post. Like myself, she read the book from cover to cover. She may have beaten me by a couple years (age 9 I think she said), but she read it. And, look at her post - as much as we hate to agree with each other - SHE AGREED WITH ME!!
Now go. Read the book. And, troll no more.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:56AM
Church's aren't public facing businesses. Public facing businesses are usually licensed to serve the public with only general exceptions such as dress codes
Here in Canada, when gay weddings were legalized, the law actually specified that ministers etc could refuse to marry gays and that it was a firing offence for a civil servant such as a marriage commissioner to refuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:09AM (2 children)
Come, now, Runaway! You just need to study your Bible more! For the Clergy, certain perogatives are given. What a pretty mouth you have, young Runaway? Do you parents know where you are? Would you like to be an "altar boy" for the night? Jesus would want you to do it, and if you do, your soul with have a place in the mansions of the Lord. Oh, my Lord! Oh, oH, OH, my LOrrrd!!.
Yes, that is how it goes. You can still file charges, Runaway. Might be good for your own mental state. Free you from Fox News, it can.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:16AM (1 child)
What would it take to free you of your obsession with anal sex? Do you even remember how many men have boned you? Yes, we can begin counting with your daddy, and his four brothers, your preacher, the six cops who arrested you for parading downtown naked. But, please continue - how many other men have there been?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:13AM
I love it when ACs start talking dirty to each other, and no one can tell who the Catholic priest is! Oh, we were discussing racism? That's alright, too. All young boys are children of God.
*Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers*
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 14 2017, @11:11PM (33 children)
From the summary:
I'll probably take a lot of flack for this, but I absolutely defend the right of these people to SAY whatever they want. But I'm not sure that such rights REQUIRE any private business to provide a platform for all speech. Personally, I think it shows a lack of a spine for GoDaddy or Google to do this, but I'll also defend THEIR right to choose how to operate their business.
Slippery slope and all, yadda, yadda, yadda. But let's take a step back here and acknowledge that the decision to stop hosting here has absolutely nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with a business making a political decision just because it might get scrutiny in the news. Any other business would likely drop affiliation with this group immediately, too. And in most cases, nobody would bat an eye if a local restaurant that used to let Daily Stormer runs ads on its website stopped allowing that or whatever. What is special about being a hosting/registration business?
And here's the thing -- if you DO think that there's something special and that certain types of internet providers or whatever should be REQUIRED to be places that support free speech, then the government should run them as public forums. Libertarians here might have a hard choice to make: you want free speech beyond, you know, shouting in the local square? Somebody's gotta pay for it. And a private business that has an affiliation with a group that gets wrapped up in nasty stuff, even an internet provider, is going to take a hit to their bottom line. So either expand your government purview and create ACTUAL online public forums or recognize that "defending the right to say it" doesn't mean ANYONE else has to enable your speech.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday August 14 2017, @11:27PM
Also, as I re-read, I note that "registration" is mentioned repeatedly, so I don't know if any hosting was involved. But again, if there was no hosting, the question then becomes -- should domain registration be "protected free speech" that a private business can't refuse to support? If so, let the government run it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 14 2017, @11:43PM (27 children)
I more or less agree and it's not a difficult choice. Private businesses should be able to refuse to make a cake or refuse to host a domain for whatever reason they so choose. The flip side of that though is I don't believe they should refuse for moral reasons. I firmly believe it is immoral to silence speech you disagree with if you are running a speech platform. Thinking it is immoral does not mean I believe it should be illegal though.
Registrars are another story. They are ultimately run by a quasi-governmental agency and need to follow the same rules that agency has to follow.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:01AM (26 children)
Socialize all printing presses and all the media that can carry a message. Even if it looks like "socialism", the "free speech socialism" is absolutely acceptable, right?
I reckon this will easily get to the point TMB will gladly allow access to his own personal computers to any stranger that, maybe momentarily, can't post on the Internet.
(will we get to the point of "in dire straight, even S/N may need to lend a hand to a poor national socialist to expose his platform. And, why stop at one"?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:17AM (25 children)
Ah, see there's the difference between you and me. When I say I think something is immoral, that's all it means. When you say it it also means you think it should be illegal. Typical regressive progtard.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:27AM (9 children)
Opps! Look like somebody's got a broken moral compass! If something is immoral, it is wrong. If something is illegal, it should also be wrong. Are you saying that illegal things are right, or that immoral things are not wrong? This kind of confused thinking might lead you into the darkness of the alt-right, Bussbar! Careful. (And what the hell is "regressive protard"? Did you mean repressive progressive? Or right-wing apologist libertariantard?)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:35AM (3 children)
I'm saying, outside the things that everyone pretty much universally agrees upon (like murder, rape, and the like), morality should never be legislated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:13AM
"things that everyone pretty much universally agrees upon"
Problem right there, see you can't expect every individual to know what they are universally in tune to. Our laws are quite complex and there really is no way around that. Some activities are protected and you can not refuse service, others are not so protected. Registrars are plentiful and the content on that site is probably approaching the legal line quite closely, so I doubt anything will happen there. Just a bunch of angry posting.
Now getting refused service from an ISP would hold more weight in court, fewer options and more of a basic utility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:16AM (1 child)
The American Society of Rapist and Murderers would like to point out that there is no universal agreement that murder and rape are immoral.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:04AM
I'm sure that such a group wouldn't mind being subject to rape and murder to prove their point.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:23AM
Let me help you some. In parts of the world, it's alright to have multiple wives, to beat them, to keep them illiterate, pregnant, and to drape them in rugs when they have to be brought out in public. But, that whole concept of maintaining dominance over women is "immoral". So, decent men don't do that shit. It's still "legal" in those places. So, if you were to move to a place where men DO routinely take child brides, and treat them as described - would it be alright for YOU to do all of that? It's LEGAL, right? But it would still be immoral.
That is - if you have any morals.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09AM
I believe it is immoral to willingly desire romantic relations with children, but I do not believe we should jail people purely for the thoughts they have in the sanctity of their mind.
If you believe that immorality and illegality are inseparable, then one of my positions is inevitably wrong. Please explain which one is, and why that is. And just to clarify, when I say "willingly" I mean that the person would pursue such a thing, if not for the threat of reprisal by the rest of society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:44AM (2 children)
If-then statements do not imply their converse. Just because something is wrong, doesn't mean it is immoral or illegal. This is basic reasoning 101. You need to up your game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:18AM (1 child)
khallow, we are talking logic, it is outside your area of expertise. We had a pair of conditionals. If you do not understand what is being said, you should shut the fuck up. Moron.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:27PM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:33AM (14 children)
Ok. So no "nationalization of the presses". Let me see how moral you are.
Would you allow a person to use your personal computer to post a "free speech" message on the internet, no matter the circumstances?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:37AM (13 children)
How much would they be paying me? I mean if it's got enough zeroes I'm perfectly willing to turn this thing into a public speech conduit. Right now it's not being advertised or sold as such though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:43AM (12 children)
Then, is it fair to say that, with you, the morality is for money?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:04AM (11 children)
Absolutely not. There is a difference between advertising and having already sold a public communication service and simply owning a thing capable of providing such.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:16AM (8 children)
Trying to get your position here:
- it's immoral for the owner of a printing press opened for business to refuse a service... but...
- it would be moral for him to ask for some extra zeros price? (eg to allow for lost business when other people chose to no longer do business with him due to his choice. Make the business owner an alt-right supporter which should make a moral choice of offering services to print alt-left materials).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:34AM (7 children)
It would be immoral for the owner of a print shop to refuse business, regardless of content. It would not be immoral for a private citizen who has a printing press for his own personal use to refuse to rent it out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:40AM (5 children)
Would it be moral for the business to charge extra for orders running contrary to the interest of his business?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:49AM (4 children)
Newp.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:01AM (3 children)
So, you are OK with a business owner loosing profit to uphold freedom of speech, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:22AM (2 children)
Clarification:
I'm morally against someone who has already sold a service saying you cannot now use said service because your custom might be held against them. Example: Not selling gay wedding cakes. I do not believe it should be illegal though.
I am not against refusing service, new or established, if the use of that service actually and directly interferes with your ability to conduct business. Example 1: Banning mass spammers on a news discussion site. Example 2: Dropping DDoS packets.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:34AM
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:43AM
Gay wedding cakes are an issue because of discrimination against PEOPLE (as a class), not over the nature of the "custom."
Patrick Stewart had a comment over this issue a year or two back that was quite insightful and pointed directly to this distinction. He was concerned that a baker was forced to provide a MESSAGE cake, i.e., one that said "support gay marriage." Doing so is co-opting the skills of another person to force them to participate in your cause. He was absolutely opposed to bakers refusing to sell CAKES to gay PEOPLE, though. I.e., the denial of service here was over the nature of the cake requested, not the client's sexuality (the latter of course being discriminatory).
Similarly, I don't have a problem at all saying it's immoral for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, exactly the same as a cake the baker would provide to a straight couple. I think it's a much more complex issue to say that a baker should be required to provide a GAY WEDDING CAKE (i.e., a cake that the baker would not generally make REGARDLESS of the CLIENT) with a message or whatever explicitly supporting gay weddings.
If you follow your "it's immoral to refuse to provide a service regardless of message," how far does that go beyond print shops and bakers? Are actors required to take ANY gig offered regardless of message? If somebody sends an actor a script that requires them to stand in a public square and pretend to be a protester in support of the Daily Stormer, is the actor required to do so? After all, the actor offers a service...
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:28AM
This is BS, sorry. There are all sorts of valid MORAL reasons to deny service on the basis of content. Notably, requests to print stuff that would support IMMORAL actions (not to mention ILLEGAL ones).
If you're going to talk about morality in generic absolutist terms, let's be logical here. If you want to declare that it's a moral decision about whether to print or not print something, then surely it's important to consider the MORALITY of the thing printed!
And to be clear, I'm not condoning blanket refusal of service for vague "moral" reasons here -- but you're the one bringing up morality. Once you get away from legality and enter the realm of morals, things do become fuzzy and up to the individual. It's therefore impossible to make logical statements like "It's immoral in all cases for X to refuse to do Y" unless Y is summarily moral. Once you introduce morality into the equation, you necessarily must consider Y's morality.
Hence why we don't tend to legislate in those terms, because it will result in all sorts of nonsense. Rather, it's better to stick to stuff like -- "It's okay for a print shop owner to refuse to print something ILLEGAL or which might be construed to support ILLEGAL activities" and leave morality out of the picture. There will be a judgment call in many cases about whether something might be construed as supporting illegal acts, but that's a question of law, not morality.
Of course, what this thread seems to be about is neither morality NOR law, but rather whether it's moral for a business owner to refuse service as a business decision, regardless of morality or ethics. Because that's what we're really talking about. And I really don't see why any service provider (print shop or otherwise) can't have his/her own set of personal business practices. If I'm a photographer, I can say, "I take pictures for weddings, but I won't take pictures for proms" because I find I make more money doing weddings. If I'm a print shop owner, why can't I say, "I print posters, but not for Nazis" because I make more money if I don't print Nazis posters because it gets me a bad reputation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:18AM
Says the masterful c0lo.
TMB responds:
Which I take to mean, morality is for enough money. TMB must be American!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:21AM
You argue morality and your belief in free speech, and then put qualifiers on a hypothetical. I think you might be suffering from too much narcissism to participate in this one, but at least I feel pretty sure you would uphold your morals. You got trapped cause you couldn't see the obvious bait about supporting free speech.
I'll take your bait though, they sold a service which included a legal contract agreed upon by Der Shitheads. Der Shitheads proceeded to be epically shitheaded and once the PR backlash became great enough the Company leveraged its right to terminate the contract.
You know why the Don't Tread On Me is a great libertarian symbol? Cause it leaves you with no legs to stand on!! *I'll show myself out*
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:22AM
"A lack of spine from godaddy"
Godaddy doesn't care about spine and shouldn't care. Whatever soviets called the DMV probably had more spirit and personality.
GoDaddy recognized that there was a high chance that thedailystormer could become a thorn in their side and dumped them as a customer. Any site more edgy than elderlystampcollectors.com is going to violate:
"Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;"
It wouldn't even be hard to figure out a way that every living breathing human is in violation of their ToS on this single rule. Of all companies I can promise you godaddy is about as SJW as Exxon, they're a horrible company and if this sends them down some improbable slippery slope to bankruptcy I would be all for it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:18AM (2 children)
Yeah - uh-huh - but, have you actually LOOKED at all the shit Godaddy has hosted? You can sum it up by saying "if you can't find anyplace else for your crazy shit, then Godaddy is the place to go."
In essence, Godaddy has no standards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
Oh they have standards, right there in the terms of service. But as you point out they pretty much have no standards except one: profit. Bad PR means a hit to the quarterly. Go blame "the market" for this one boys and stop letting nazis play the victim.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:11AM
Yep, that's exactly my point and why I said GoDaddy has no spine. It's a question whether it should have one as a business -- surely there's some line to draw SOMEWHERE over the ethics of taking down sites or refusing service or whatever. But that line is (as you note) much more likely to be drawn by business/money interests than consistent ethics.
Hence "no spine." They'll host all kinds of crap much worse than this, but this one has the potential to look bad because people might bother to look and realize they were connected to it..
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 14 2017, @11:17PM (3 children)
Just so you know
For 3 days, all the press in Australia run stories expressing puzzlement and different degrees of condemnation on Trump's reaction on Saturday (violence "from many sides", followed by a tweet silence on the matter, then being snarky ). [politico.com]
I'd appreciate if other non-Amrican S/N dwellers can share the views over the matter in their country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:34PM (2 children)
Consider it the equivalent to Obama's response to Black Lives Murders members killing police over and over during his tenure, and scolding whites that they needed to have open minds. Or you know, the frequent Islamic terrorism attacks, like cars driven into crowds of people, that happened in the US under his tenure, where we were told over and over that #notallmuslims was a thing.
People will see what they want to see. The mainstream media is no exception, and is probably the driving force behind a lot of our opinions.
Daily Stormer should probably find the registrar for Voat, and use that. Against all reasonable odds, that site was created by an Iranian expat who still practices Islam. You would never know from visiting the site, since he is one of those "dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" types of people.
#notallnazis #notallwhites
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:00AM (1 child)
[Citation needed]
No, seriously, I couldn't find anything in the barrage of Charlottesville news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:18AM
Drunk guy at Mardi Gras, Old guy at some racing track. MRA guy who couldn't get laid at some campus party. That was about it. Kind of like the one yesterday in France. Now what does this have to do with anything? Nothing! Trump is the president of the Alt-Right. He needs to be removed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:38PM (10 children)
every witness [...] believed the act was deliberate [heavy.com]
Second-degree murder charges have been filed.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 14 2017, @11:48PM (9 children)
Good. I'm not a fan of violent fuckwads and murderers any more than I am of racists. I don't care if they're the KKK, generic white supremacists, BLM, Antifa, run of the mill SJWs, or more traditional racists.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday August 14 2017, @11:52PM (8 children)
Just to be clear, TMB, since we can never tell with you, are you glad it was a premeditated attack, or glad that he is being charged? Soylentils need to know.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:23AM (7 children)
Really, I don't give much of a shit if a bunch of wannabe-Nazi fucks, BLM, and Antifa all want to go be in the same place until they Darwin themselves out of the gene pool. They're just different flavors of the exact same thing. Crime needs to be punished though.
Just an FYI, murder two specifically means they don't think they can prove premeditation.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:31AM
It will be pretty easy for a lawyer to argue that he didn't intend to kill anyone, just scare them.
Premeditation would only stick if they prove he knew all along his speed would be deadly.
(IANAL)
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:35AM (5 children)
So, that's a "yes"? I'm still not clear on your sympathies. Should have been murder 1 + extra hate crime charges? Or were there "many sides"?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:40AM
Extra hate crime charges? Why? I thought that it was pretty well assumed you hated someone if you went to all the trouble of murdering them, serial killers aside. As to the specific charges though, I'm not gonna backseat lawyer today. I expect the prosecutors know their bidness.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:59AM (3 children)
Jesus, trying to pursue a specific angle there much bub?
I like to poke that bird too, but he isn't being much of a douche today. Maybe he's on his meds, or off his booze.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:22AM (2 children)
But is he alt-right Nazi sympathizing, free speech for enemies of humanity, libertarian type of equivalizer? People like the Mighinty Blizzard are in part responsible for the carnage in Charlottesville, and he needs to know this.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:13AM (1 child)
BINGO. His edgier-than-thou bullshit isn't a fucking game anymore, and I suspect his weirdly subdued, quiet responses today may be dawn breaking over Marblehead, as it were, on this point. He may actually be doing what-passes-for-soul-searching. Fuck me, but this election is making weird things happen.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:23AM
Azuma, do you really think this could be happening? Then there is hope for humanity! And hope for SoylentNews! But if not, well, we are well and truly screwed, an alt-right den of scum and villiany. Help us Obi Wan Mighty Buzztard!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:46PM (3 children)
Murderer photographed brandishing a shield with Neo-Nazi group before his attack in Charlottesville [nydailynews.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday August 14 2017, @11:56PM
link is adwalled
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3407239.1502598317!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/fields13n-6-web.jpg [nydailynews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:20AM (1 child)
He's deliberately destabilizing both continents because he's a nazi collaborating, ethnically jewish sociopath who simply gets off on being able to do it. He, his enablers and apologists all belong in long term psychiatric care. HTH.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:28AM
Listen, you Nazi sympathizing scum, George Soros has microphones under your bed. He has cameras that take over the cameras in your laptop. He has lasers pointed at your windows that record every conversation you have with yourself. He has DNA scanners in your socks! You are so fucked, dude! When the black helicopters come, or if you see a blue Prius drive down your street, time for preemptive measures, dude! Just saying.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @11:51PM (23 children)
Heather Heyer, the gal who was murdered, was somebody you'd want in your town. [heavy.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:12AM (22 children)
Why were they wanting to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:36AM (21 children)
Robert E. Lee was an officer in the US Army, sworn to uphold The Constitution.
He then chose to become the commander of The Army of Northern Virginia AKA the Confederate forces.
This was in service of an insurrection against the United States of America.
The standard callout for this is "traitor".
He was also a slaveholder.
He and other Confederates have become symbols of "The Lost Cause" (the insurgency for the continuation of slavery).
N.B. His estate in Arlington, VA was seized by the federal gov't and turned into a cemetery for Union war dead.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:46AM
Wasn't most of the Founding Fathers slave owners? It was normal at the time. So I don't think you can, or should, really hold that against Lee or any of them (I'm not saying Lee was a founding father). Thomas "All men are created Equal" Jefferson had large slave holdings, he got a gigantic memorial in Washington and probably countless statues and other things named after him. So if that isn't an issue or those things are about to be torn down I think we can let Lee have that one (or a few more) statues without a gigantic freakout.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @12:50AM (3 children)
Oversimplification. The Civil War was about slavery specifically but it was also very much about states' rights vs federalism. I have no idea what percentage of each made up Lee's mind to expatriate himself. I do know there was nothing in the Constitution at the time saying you could not leave the Union, so the States that did had every right in the world to. That they were pulled back into the Union after the war was simply a case of might makes right.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:27AM (1 child)
TMB! In the SoylyentNews! Teaching the Controversy!
Treason, TMB! Traitor to the Consitution! Traitor to the comrades he served with in the Mexican-American War! Domestic Tranquility! States' rights is a traitor's dogwhistle. The South will lose again. Racism doth never prosper. Period. There are not "many sides".
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:09AM
Mleh, it would be ignorant to say there was no more to the civil war than slavery / racism.
I'm all for taking down the statue, but don't dismiss real concerns just because they are SHARED by nazi pigfuckers. That is the war drum of the dreaded s.j.w, correlation must equal causation! They come in the night and steal your soouuul (I'm teasing conservatives here, just to make that clear).
As for whether the states were violating the constitution with secession I don't know and I don't care. The general point is that state's rights is actually a real issue, and more important these days in the more liberal areas with marijuana legalization. Denying that historical perspective just because the issue of slavery was more important would be like a slap to the face with a stick of stupid.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:46AM
That's true, at least not explicitly. Arguably still isn't.
That, however, is significantly more debatable. Secessionist debates went on at various times in both Northern and Southern states from the 1810s until the Civil War. There were always learned people on both sides about how strong the compact was intended to be.
To be clear, what many of the states actually argued in their articles of secession was NOT that they had "every right" to leave just as they wanted to, but rather that the Northern states had already abrogated their role in enforcing the Constitution (specifically the Fugitive Slave Clause; several states repeatedly defied the federal government outright in passing laws or having repeated court decisions blatantly ignoring the TWO Congressional acts that attempted to enforce it). So, the logic of the first wave of secession (read South Carolina's justification, since it was the first to go) was that the federal government had ceased to follow the Constitution, thus the Southern states had the right to separate. Also, many states argued that the Republican Party's election in 1860 (which had a radical abolitionist faction) also had effectively denied them representation to effectively fight the unconstitutional measures of the Northern states in ignoring the Fugitive Slave Act. (Note that Lincoln received ZERO votes in most southern states -- he wasn't even on the ballot in most of them.)
Anyhow, back to Lee, for Virginia's secession, you have to look to the second wave of secessions -- there had been a pause of a couple months. The second wave only occurred after Fort Sumter, but more importantly after Lincoln announced an invasion of the South and ordered Federal troops for that purpose. Several of the border states (including Virginia) had resisted secession (Virginia formally had voted against it), but viewed the invasion of Federal troops into Southern states as patently unconstitutional. Again, this justification is mentioned in several articles of secession for the second wave. Lee only made his choice when Virginia seceded, and thus there's a much stronger case for "states rights" there, because once Lincoln ordered invasion, everyone in Virginia knew it was going to be ruined by war, whether it stayed or went... geographically it ended up in the middle of a mess. So Lee was stuck with the tough choice of supporting a guy who was summarily (with little constitutional justification) invading other states, or going with his home state which was about to be overrun and destroyed by said guy.
So yeah, it's a bit more complicated. But even many Southerners didn't think they had a blanket right to secede on a whim -- it was only the "unconstitutional" actions of the North that provided many of the final justifications to break away.
Yeah, that's basically true again.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @01:37AM (12 children)
Lee was sworn to uphold the constitution, and he did exactly that. The constitution gives very specific rights to states, as well as the federal government. The issue in dispute was state rights. Lee was almost certainly on the right side of that issue. But, since might has always made right, he ended up being wrong. So, when you cut through all the verbiage, taking down the statues of Lee amounts to nothing more than bullying on the part of the more powerful mobs today.
Oh, wait - you're probably one of those who believe that Whitey actually fought a war over black slavery? LOL, what a chump. No, a bunch of white guys did NOT start killing each other for the sake of black people. In fact, the emancipation proclamation wasn't proclaimed until two years into the war. It was an afterthought. "Hey, those southern boys are pretty damned tough. Wouldn't it weaken them some if we got all their slaves to run away, or revolt, or something?"
Seriously, go back and examine the issues.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:01AM (8 children)
While you're sort of right on some things, it's critical to make a few distinctions. As I already posted above, the first wave of secessions was UNDOUBTEDLY OVER SLAVERY. "States rights" was the dispute over whether secession was legal. But the reason FOR the secessions was because of concerns over the federal government's approach to SLAVERY after the 1860 sudden takeover by Republicans.
But, you're right that the North absolutely did NOT go to war over slavery or to free anyone. It went to war because it disagreed with the interpretation of states rights that would have allowed secession. So the bizarre thing is that the two modern sides often have things absolutely backwards. The Southern apologists often want to claim the whole thing was about "states rights" when the South really wanted to go over slavery. And the mainstream view today is that the whole war began over slavery, when it's likely no war would have been fought if they had just left the Southern states leave -- it was only because of "states rights" (or rather lack thereof) that the North invaded.
The second wave of secession is more complex, as I already noted. Slavery was undoubtedly still a concern in those debates, but Lincoln's plan to lead an aggressive (and possibly unconstitutional war) was a much greater concern in the border states.
That's going way overboard. I'm have a pretty balanced view of Lee (as I've written on past stories before, where I've strongly defended him against being lumped in with the more crazy pro-slavery-forever Southerners), but public monuments are in public spaces and recognize public meaning. If they are no longer doing the purpose they were originally placed there to do, the current people of that municipality have EVERY right to reconsider whether those public monuments are still worthwhile to support. Personally, I think that there's a lot of ignorance going on right now, and there should be more context (maybe explanatory plaques) and less summary removal of things without debate or thought. BUT if a city or state government or whatever decides they should come down, it's not "bullying by mobs" -- it's a decision about a support of a PUBLIC space made generally by democratically elected representatives of the PEOPLE (i.e., public).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:27AM (2 children)
Personally, I'm with this black chick I saw a video of over the weekend: They're history. If you don't want them still out in the square, that's fine. But put them in a museum rather than destroying them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @02:45AM
They are history-- from 1924. Kind of like "In God We Trust" on the money from the '50s. Or the Pledge of Allergy in classrooms.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:09AM
Agreed.
Though in some cases it's been hard to find places for these things. Public monuments and statues are often made to be huge for a reason. Museums have limited space. I've seen a couple news articles about cities having a lot of difficulty finding places to put these things. Often there's been attempts to find other parks willing to host them (either private parks or those in less prominent or objectionable locations).
At some point, though, there's also a sort of issue of how much you want to preserve. Yale renamed its Calhoun College recently. I can't remember what the building looks like, but presumably there's a giant facade somewhere that says "Calhoun College." Is that facade historical and worthy of preservation? Does it make a difference if it's carved stone letters vs. just a bunch of rusty copper hammered into the wall? If that's not worthy for redemption, what's worthy beyond sculptures and statues? Is a giant obelisk war memorial in honor a Confederate general worthy of preservation, even with no statue?
I'm not saying there should be definitive answers to all of this... just throwing out some thoughts. Giant statues take up a lot of space, and frankly, most of them aren't very interesting for "artistic" reasons. If they're bronze or some other useful metal, such things used to just be melted down in the good old days and reused to make new monuments and such.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:18AM (4 children)
Your view isn't terrible. In fact, it's reasonable. But, that isn't the view that is getting publicity today. Monuments are being dragged down because they are "politically incorrect" and "offensive". And, I'm sure that I don't need to state my view of political correctness again.
New Orleans is in the news, for the number of monuments being taken down.
Sweet Jesus - Google is fokked. I did a search for the slave auction thing, and I honest to god get a link saying "Find best value and selection for your SLAVE-AUCTION-BLOCK-NEW-ORLEANS-LOUISIANA-BLACK-NOLA- search on eBay. World's leading marketplace." Alright, maybe it's Ebay's fokup, still . . .
More to the point, is this article - http://www.nola.com/arts/index.ssf/2015/03/slavery_in_new_orleans_is_the.html [nola.com]
My question is, why didn't Black Americans TAKE that damned auction block, and make it theirs? It COULD have become something that they point at with something resembling pride. (How many white people's ancestors were worth thousands of dollars, anyway? Most had little if any value, and most of them were unwanted by anyone who was already here - including my own ancestors. Black people, on the other hand, were highly prize.)
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:41AM
Welcome to democracy, a.k.a. mob rule, as it was known to much of the ancient world. Politicians placate the whims of public opinion. Well, politicians also placate the parts of the masses who are most vocal. Even where public opinion has been against taking monuments down, I sincerely doubt enough people care enough to vote people out of office and vote in people who will restore the monuments.
So yeah, this is mostly being driven by the cause of the moment. I got concerned about it at first, but I'm a fan of history... and as such, I know full well that such purges have happened frequently, often for no apparent reason other than the whims of a new leader or whatever. It's distressing to me on some level that most of these decisions are being driven with an incredible amount of ignorance about the historical figures they deal with, but ultimately I think we just need to accept these AREN'T history. They look like history, because they depict historical figures -- but many of them were erected generations later for all sorts of reasons (some which would still be viewed as okay today, many which would not be).
They're just random detritus strewn in public parks, the flotsam and jetsam of the waves of history. Right now the tide is running one way, and some are just getting washed out in the current. If our goal is preserving history and understanding it, I'm really not sure leaving a statue of Jefferson Davis that some pro-Jim Crow group stuck up there in the 1950s because they didn't want them damn n*****s in their schools is doing anyone much good in understanding or appreciating it.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday August 15 2017, @03:48AM (1 child)
By the way, though -- I'm not sure if you're serious about feeling "pride" in being a slave. Of course many slaves did feel pride in their work back then, because it was the system. But it seems a bit odd to think about modern Blacks taking pride in the cost of their ancestors... the cost was only because they were UNPAID. You're right that most white people back then weren't worth much either, but if you count up their earnings over a lifetime or whatever, they often were worth something. If a white person did as much work as most slaves did, they likely would have been paid similar amounts of money over a lifetime too, if not quite a bit more... it's just most white people wouldn't have stood for the kind of labor slaves were often requested to do.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:04AM
Yeah, I'm pretty serious about taking pride in your heritage. There are any number of people who came to this country who were unwanted. My great-grandparents suffered the stupid Pollock jokes from the time they arrived here. My grandfather put up with them all his life, of course. I, the third generation since the Polish branch of the family arrived here, just gave it back. Of course, it's a lot easier to give it back to the "white" people, when there's a Polish professor lecturing the class. "If Pollocks are so stupid, WTF are you doing in a class taught by a Pollock?"
Pride. I'm proud of my Polish grandfather. The old man worked harder, and put up with more abuse and stupid shit than my "white" grandfather did. He worked from his teen years, right up until a couple months before he died. He provided for his family, and left a bit of money for them when he left. The English grandfather? Not so much.
Black people SHOULD take pride in their grandparents and greats, and great-greats. Maybe not all, but most of them were fine people, making the best of what life gave them, just like my Polish grandfather. We don't need the militant black pride that the Black Panthers offer, but we all need for the Black people to take pride in their heritage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:26AM
Oh, please, Runaway! Tell us once again what your views are on political correctness! And then go compare Joy Reid's explanation [euvolution.com] on how that is just straight up racism, and then come back and apologize, you fucking racist excuse for a human being! If you have the balls! I spit in your general direction!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:31AM (2 children)
So, they don't teach History in Arkansaws, I take it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @05:43AM (1 child)
I would ask if you can elighten us - but your own ignorance shines through.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:48AM
I love the smell of Runaway posting AC! It smells, like Hillbilly vomit from too much Moonshine!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:05AM (2 children)
A man and a woman got married.
Some decades later there were fights over things such as how to handle the family money.
The woman decided to leave for good rather than stay and fight.
The man ran after the woman and forced her back at gunpoint (having killed many of the woman's defenders).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:29AM (1 child)
After Robert E. Lee started beating the kids, and making them work in the fields for no pay, and fucking the females and children whenever he wanted. Oh, Southern Culture. Just makes me feel all warm and racist inside.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:24PM
You say conquering, killing, and subjugating other tribes and nations is perfectly fine as long as we're doing it to make them civilized? Then the US atrocities against the native Americans was a moral good!
Your cognitive dissonance is remarkable.