Apple Pulls Apple Pay Support From Websites Selling White Nationalist and Nazi Apparel [Updated]

[LordVic]

While I mostly agree, the first few sentences of your post do a good job on why this is a current challenge. Don't focus on Aryan or Nazi. These are just a point among many. Before we start identifying specific "items" that are "not right" or "not appropriate", we need to understand what a slippery slope this can easily become. Nazi today, Fascist tomorrow, white/blonde/blue a year later...

Your use of the term secular would not be popular nor accepted in the majority of the world. Well, if we exclude China.

But this is where you need to have faith in your elected officials to be able to be accountable and know their limits.

I will admit, sometimes I do forget that the general belief in the USA is that the elected officials are not to be trusted. We have a completely different mindset up here in Canada, where, we generally do trust our officials, and when they behave in ways that are not representative of where we wisht o go as a country, we replace those leaders. (Just look at our last election where the "Anyone but Harper" movement flipped our government overnight from right wing to left wing). We tend to believe our system works.

Maybe that's why we have such a fundamental difference of opinion on this. I TRUST my government to be accountable to us. And for the most part, They are. So I trust them when they say "hate speech is illegal".
[doublepost=1503071096][/doublepost]

This singe line you wrote is a good definition of the issue. Do we respond because of the vocal threat that could incite some to violence or do we respond once the violence erupts? Or is it the scale? Personally I think our response is paradigmed by WWII and the atrocities that occurred.

If we want to establish "Nazism" as an outright threat of violence, we need to establish laws defining this, use them, and go though the judicial process to clarify them. Thoughtful controlled response. Not emotional response.

I completely, 100% agree.

Do it properly. Do it legally and do it justly.

 

[dk001]

But this is where you need to have faith in your elected officials to be able to be accountable and know their limits.

I will admit, sometimes I do forget that the general belief in the USA is that the elected officials are not to be trusted. We have a completely different mindset up here in Canada, where, we generally do trust our officials, and when they behave in ways that are not representative of where we wisht o go as a country, we replace those leaders. (Just look at our last election where the "Anyone but Harper" movement flipped our government overnight from right wing to left wing). We tend to believe our system works.

Maybe that's why we have such a fundamental difference of opinion on this. I TRUST my government to be accountable to us. And for the most part, They are. So I trust them when they say "hate speech is illegal".
[doublepost=1503071096][/doublepost]

I completely, 100% agree.

Do it properly. Do it legally and do it justly.

We trust our elected officials once they their decisions have been vetted via the judicial process. We are, good and bad, a nation of lawyers.

 

[LordVic]

We trust our elected officials once they their decisions have been vetted via the judicial process. We are, good and bad, a nation of lawyers.

We aren't much different. We have a slightly different version of checks and balances.

But at the end of the day, any bill / law that is signed into action still has to be verified by our supreme courts to ensure its valid under our constitution and our charter.

Stephen Harper (Or former Prime Minister) was notorious for being shut down by the Supreme court several times for unconstitutional laws and changes. Unfortauntely, in some cases though, the law can still be passed and it takes a challenge in the courts to overturn it.

And believe it or not, we even have a provision in our charter of rights, that says the government can pass a law that violates the charter for 3 year period. The idea behind this is that there are times where public safety and concern overrides the individual right and freedom. there's a fixed time limit this can be applied, because the notion is if that government does such an act that is in such distate to the population, an election will likely end up happening near the timeframe and the people can action against the government.

however, sometimes (there are 2 cases off the top of my head) where the overall consensus of Canadians is those laws are OK, and have actually stuck around without challenge. The French language law in Quebec was deemed unconstitutional, but the quebec government reapplies it every 3 years. The People of Quebec are OK with this, so they don't challenge. and each Quebec government keeps putting in place this quasi-law.

The other is "RIDE" program. Where police set up random roadblock to check for drunk drivers. This was deemed a violation of the charter of rights and freedoms, But overall Canadians agree that doing random drunk driver spotchecks is a good thing overall.

 

[Carnegie]

I think what i'm "having problems with" is how Nazi's protesting isn't considered a threat of violence outright.

The whole existence of nazi's is a direct threat to large groups of people. The very thing they stand for is the eradication of people. When I see a Nazi flag, it's a call to arms to kill me, my family, my people, and many other peoples who would desire freedom and peace.

I'm really a strong supporter of freedom of speech. I will generally side with most people here that the government SHOULD only enforce limitations in limited and highly controlled cases where the government needs to be held accountable / responsible for it.

But Nazism is a line. A very clear line. if their only message was "we want national socialistic authoratarian leadership", i wouldn't being saying this, Because ones desire for a political system that is different than our own doesn't qualify as hate speech

But that's NOT what these Nazi groups are spreading. They are spreading hate, and hoping that others will take up the banner of Racial purity. it's an indefensible position to take.

Well, it depends on what in particular we're talking about - e.g., what a particular person said - when it comes to whether it's considered a true threat or an incitement to imminent lawlessness.

Some examples...

If someone says to a crowd of (fellow) Nazis: Hey, let's go smash those n*****s' [someone please advise me if the forum has rules against intentionally obscuring certain slurs like that] heads in. That would likely be unprotected speech under the incitement exception.

On the other hand, if someone says to a crowd of (fellow) Nazis: White Americans have to stick together. One day we're gonna take back this country from all the n*****s and k***s. As contemptible a sentiment as that is, it would likely be protected speech because it doesn't meet the criteria for the incitement exception.

Or someone says: Whites are superior to all other races. We must elect politicians that will get our laws back to respecting that. Protected

Or someone says: Hey boy. You, right there. We're coming for you. We're gonna cleanse this country of people like you. That would likely be unprotected speech under the true threats exception.

Or someone says to someone else's face: Get back to the plantation, n*****. That would likely be unprotected speech under the fighting words exception.

Beyond the words actually spoken, protected versus unprotected speech might also depend on the context. For instance, brandishing a firearm and looking at a particular person while saying what is said in the second example above might well be unprotected speech under the incitement or true threats exceptions.


But expressions of hatred or racism, or advocacy of violence in general or even general advocacy for a nation devoid of other races or religions, would not, in and of themselves, be unprotected speech.

 

[LordVic]

Well, it depends on what in particular we're talking about - e.g., what a particular person said - when it comes to whether it's considered a true threat or an incitement to imminent lawlessness.

Some examples...

If someone says to a crowd of (fellow) Nazis: Hey, let's go smash those n*****s' [someone please advise me if the forum has rules against intentionally obscuring certain slurs like that] heads in. That would likely be unprotected speech under the incitement exception.

On the other hand, if someone says to a crowd of (fellow) Nazis: White Americans have to stick together. One day we're gonna take back this country from all the n*****s and k***s. As contemptible a sentiment as that is, it would likely be protected speech because it doesn't meet the criteria for the incitement exception.

Or someone says: Whites are superior to all other races. We must elect politicians that will get our laws back to respecting that. Protected

Or someone says: Hey boy. You, right there. We're coming for you. We're gonna cleanse this country of people like you. That would likely be unprotected speech under the true threats exception.

Or someone says to someone else's face: Get back to the plantation, n*****. That would likely be unprotected speech under the fighting words exception.

Beyond the words actually spoken, protected versus unprotected speech might also depend on the context. For instance, brandishing a firearm and looking at a particular person while saying what is said in the second example above might well be unprotected speech under the incitement or true threats exceptions.


But expressions of hatred or racism, or advocacy of violence in general or even general advocacy for a nation devoid of other races or religions, would not, in and of themselves, be unprotected speech.

See, this is the debate that I'm ok with having. because it's discussing actually how do we deal with this.

I have a problem with the blanket statement "it's freedom of speech so let them talk".

the message and context is important. And a line does need to be drawn somewhere.

Thanks for the reasonable discussion on this

 

[MrX8503]

What if I think Al Gore is hate speech? Is it OK for me to shut him down and split open the heads of his supporter? You are right this is enlightening...it's enlightening to see how the far left is OK with violence. This is going to spiral out of control if unchecked. Be careful what you wish for, it will not be pretty.
[doublepost=1503068015][/doublepost]

My point exactly. If they are just marching and chanting expressing their opinions then good for them regardless of how vile it is. I am pro liberty first and foremost. What the Nazi's want is NOT liberty so I stand against them..but I don't beat them down like a bunch of fascists. If they are obeying the law, leave them be, let people see them for who they are. Or do you think people are so easily swayed to hate?

The alt right beat down the left too. They also committed murder.

Look, all violence is NOT ok. Having said that, Nazism should be condemned and shouldn't be tolerated in any form.

6 million Jews were murdered, so we all know how dangerous Nazism can be.

 

[Mansu944]

This is where you and I disagree, they need a good beat down and hopefully they get one at the next event too.

Wow, so tolerant....you need help.
[doublepost=1503078610][/doublepost]

Don't play false equivelancies.

Al Gore doesn't call for the genocide of entire races.

However, I don't condone responding with violence. However, I have every right to get up in a Nazi's face and tell them "NEVER AGAIN".

What I have issue with is the fact that they're being ALLOWED to have their own protests. The fact that Nazism isn't classified as hate speech is deplorable.

and anyone who permits Nazi's to peddle their ********, is complicit in allowing Nazism

Why should hate speech be outlawed? Who decides what is hate speech? Do you not beleive int he constitution?

 

[LordVic]

Wow, so tolerant....you need help.
[doublepost=1503078610][/doublepost]

Why should hate speech be outlawed? Who decides what is hate speech? Do you not beleive int he constitution?

First:

The constitution of the United States is intended to be a living document open to change and adjustment as people see fit. The very premise that it can be ammended and changed really hurts your statement here.

"DO you believe in the constitution". yes, I believe that countries that are bound and ruled by law should have a living constitution and charter of rights and freedoms. But I do not "Believe" in it like a bible or ome objective truth that must be upheld no matter what to the letter. Since the rule of law is open to interpretation (the reason for supreme court judges).

"who decides what is hate speech". Lawyers, Governments and Judges should be working together to put in place a set of amendments and rules that are best subscribed for our current society and problems it might face. The Freedom of speech provisions weren't intended to "give everys single person the right to spew hate". They were given as a means to prevent the government from tyranical rule by allowing for the freedom of truths by the populace.

This notion that the Constitution must be 100% truthfull and objective and cannot be changed is extreme closed minded and defies in the face that the US founding father's themselves intended. Hiding behind the First ammendment to allow for a group of people to glorify, and encourage genocide was never the intents. Using it in such a manner is an indictment of those who would fall back. Instead of trying to use your voice to help silence Nazis, you'd rather say "GIVE THEM THE RIGHT!!"...

 

[dk001]

First:

The constitution of the United States is intended to be a living document open to change and adjustment as people see fit. The very premise that it can be ammended and changed really hurts your statement here.

"DO you believe in the constitution". yes, I believe that countries that are bound and ruled by law should have a living constitution and charter of rights and freedoms. But I do not "Believe" in it like a bible or ome objective truth that must be upheld no matter what to the letter. Since the rule of law is open to interpretation (the reason for supreme court judges).

"who decides what is hate speech". Lawyers, Governments and Judges should be working together to put in place a set of amendments and rules that are best subscribed for our current society and problems it might face. The Freedom of speech provisions weren't intended to "give everys single person the right to spew hate". They were given as a means to prevent the government from tyranical rule by allowing for the freedom of truths by the populace.

This notion that the Constitution must be 100% truthfull and objective and cannot be changed is extreme closed minded and defies in the face that the US founding father's themselves intended. Hiding behind the First ammendment to allow for a group of people to glorify, and encourage genocide was never the intents. Using it in such a manner is an indictment of those who would fall back. Instead of trying to use your voice to help silence Nazis, you'd rather say "GIVE THEM THE RIGHT!!"...

Congress > Amendment Revision > States Approval > Judicial (Legal Challenges)
"Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures."
That will be a real uphill climb. Don't see how this will ever occur.

Now individual new bill(s) that further defines "hate speech inciting violence" is more likely. Going to be a long legal effort.

 

[LordVic]

Congress > Amendment Revision > States Approval > Judicial (Legal Challenges)
"Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures."
That will be a real uphill climb. Don't see how this will ever occur.

Now individual new bill(s) that further defines "hate speech inciting violence" is more likely. Going to be a long legal effort.

Yes, Yes it will. I'm angry about the Nazis but I do understand that this isn't something that is just going to fliip a switch and be better. it'll take work. But when did we become afraid of work?

 

[dk001]

Yes, Yes it will. I'm angry about the Nazis but I do understand that this isn't something that is just going to fliip a switch and be better. it'll take work. But when did we become afraid of work?

I don't think we are afraid of work. The ability to get it passed will be the challenge. We won't be able to limit an Amendment revision to "Nazi". Defining this is what will be the challenge. A definition that will pass judicial muster.

 

[localoid]

... Now individual new bill(s) that further defines "hate speech inciting violence" is more likely. Going to be a long legal effort.

Speech inciting violence is already illegal. E.g., you have no "free speech protection" that allows you to stand up in town square and shout "How many of you boys are going come with me to go down to Fred's house and burn the house down with him and his family in it?"

 

[dk001]

Speech inciting violence is already illegal. E.g., you have no "free speech protection" that allows you to stand up in town square and shout "How many of you boys are going come with me to go down to Fred's house and burn the house down with him and his family in it?"

Not exactly.... Here is an article that addresses some of the misconceptions. (ARTICLE)
It is a very convoluted definition ..... A big piece seems to hinge on a link to existing criminal conduct.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Apple pay for black panther organization?

Wow just out of he blue and you have NO IDEA the original reason and drive of gay organization nor its refocus after 1972!
Do some research please.
[doublepost=1503371896][/doublepost]

No, the principle is exactly the same, discrimination.

There is no "stretch". Either discrimination is OK or its not. Its like pregnancy, you either are or you are not.
There is no "good" or "bad" discrimination, its just wrong, and unfortunately that means there are some people who are repugnant (extreme right in this case) are entitled not to be discriminated against.

Well said bravo!
[doublepost=1503371940][/doublepost]

Free speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of said speech.

Ice T said it best "Freedom of speech, just watch what you say"

 

[hsotnicam8002]

Can i give you a bit of advice. Don't use Toronto's BLM as an example of BLM. And don't use the Toronto Sun as a source.

The "Founder" of Toronto's BLM is a known racist. And her opinion is basically considered irrelevant to all but her faithful followers.
Which is a shame because Toronto does have a racial profiling problem, and the Toronto Police force will not back down from their carding program (which has been deemed racist by courts and international committees over and over again)

I replied to:

2010mini said: ↑
Please include the source of this moronic line of thinking.

 

[LordVic]

I replied to:

2010mini said: ↑
Please include the source of this moronic line of thinking.

Toronto BLM is not affiliated with BLM in the States and do not represent nor associate. They are a bunch of angry racists who have latched on to the problems in the US and are attempting to use that to gain political points.

I'm just trying to say that using Toronto's BLM leaders moronic statements to discredit US's BLM movement isn't fair to what BLM in the states is trying to achieve.