you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 173 points 3 years ago (8 children)

Hope the lawsuit exposes them more. It should be 100% illegal to be anonymous to be part of a domestic terrorist groups our a hate group like this. Do what Germany does with nazis.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    As an attorney, I would absolutely love to have subpoena and discovery power against right wing loons. I’m surprised they sued in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    Exactly no one can accuse them of being smart.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    Since Patriot Front itself as an organization is not party to the suit how much can reasonably be gotten from them that wasn't in the leak? And I assume they've all been sanitizing their electronic devices and destroying anything remotely incriminating leading up to this lawsuit. Probably even distancing themselves from Patriot Front itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Heard from a friend; Just as real champagne only comes from France, only facists from Germany can be called Nazis. All others a simply sparkling facists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not to undercut you, but a study of German police and such recently found there are a LOT of Nazis gaining power...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I heard they've naizies in the military n in their police ranks etc.. do you know/ can You verify?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I don't know this source that well, but it very recently claimed that Nazi symbols and child porn were found in police chats. I lean more towards believing it after NPR reported in 2020 about Germany investigating their own police during a noticeable rise in "Far-Right Extremism" around the country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    I don’t know this source that well, but it very recently claimed that Nazi symbols and child porn were found in police chats.

    USA Today ran it, so that's some amount of a known-quantity. I'd say the accusation has definitely been made and isn't made up. The veracity of the accusation will have to be determined through the courts.

    https://ustoday.news/nazi-symbols-and-child-pornography-found-in-german-police-chats/

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It should be 100% illegal to be anonymous to be part of a domestic terrorist groups our a hate group like this.

    Now, define "domestic terrorist group" and "hate group" and do so in such a way that someone explicitly looking to attack the causes you believe in can't manage to count people you support in either of those groups. Because that's the hard part.

    Also the bit where you have to throw out the 1st Amendment - freedom of speech that doesn't apply to even wildly unpopular ideas isn't actually freedom of speech because only unpopular ideas ever need protecting and exactly how far into unpopular, hated, reviled and abhorrent ideas you have to go before things become illegal is exactly how strong those freedoms are. Henry Louis Mencken once wrote, “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

    Just imagine a hard right fundie christian conservative judge getting to rule whether or not a group falls under the definitions you give, and they'll rule it accurately for any hard and fast cases but also will use any flexibility you give against you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    I mean, I hate white nationalism just as much as the next guy. But if you go around making it illegal to be anonymous or part of a particular group, whether they're considered terrorist or otherwise, that's bad. It gives the next party in power precedent to make being part of your group illegal. That's why freedom of speech is so important.

    I think associating with a group that believes in the creation of an ethnostate should remain legal so that associating with a group that believes in the dismantling of capitalism remains legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    The paradox of tolerance is real, and not all things are equal.

    If you allow a group that wants to murder to organize, they will eventually murder.

    Banning genocide enthusiast groups doesn't mean you also have to ban bird watchers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [B] 3 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I agree, but given that police have tried to charge Cop City protesters with terrorism we need to be really careful and scrutinize any new laws designed to stop these groups and how it may be intentionally or unintentionally harmful to littigamate activism and protest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Can we learn to discern between legitimate uses of a term and illegitimate ones? Can we accept it's okay to call hate groups terrorists while their protesters are not? Can we accept reality for what it is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, I used to be a "free speech absolutist" too. Used to harp on about how important it is that we allow all views to be spread, regardless of how disgusting it might be... Then I grew up and realized how harmful that idea is to society.

    Slippery slope fallacy isn't enough to convince me that having laws similar to Germany is going to lead to oppression or something. These ideologies have no place in modern society, and they should be given no quarter.

    These people use your ideal of free speech absolutism against you, and until we realize there needs to be limits, we will never progress as a society because all of our time, focus, and resources will need to be on fighting this shit over and over and over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I thought "clear and present danger" took care of this sort of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not sure where I fall in this conversation, but, imo all hate speech is a clear and present danger. Every time you preach hate, even if you don't have a specific immediate call to action, you are speaking to people that will take it as a call to action. I think the clear and present danger idea is really giving human beings far too much credit. Normalizing hate makes assholes think they have the support of their peers, which leads to bad things, every time. In that sense hate speech is violence. Try being on the receiving end of hate speech and you will understand just how clear and present the danger really is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    My single-sentence comment seems to have caused me to be misunderstood.

    I'm wondering, why is the "clear and present danger" doctrine NOT being used to shut these racists down? Because from my perspective, racist hate speech is clearly dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Agreed. The first Gay and Lesbian liberation groups people operated with aliases because infiltration could mean their persecution under the law. To fight an unjust rule of law anonymity to a degree is needed to shield the just. That someone unjust can utilize that same shield is an unfortunate consequence.

    The difference is if people still think your version of justice is deplorable when you come out from behind the shield then the consequences are yours to reap. In this instance it's not a matter of people wanting to be able to love each other publicly and get married it's people wanting to crush people beneath a boot so the issue is a little less gray. Caveat emptor.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    Do what Germany does with Nazis

    What do you think we do with Nazis?

    edit: not sure why this is sitting at -1 right now, germany barely does anything against Nazis on a state level. In fact they support them and allow them to grow with barely any hinderance. Check out the NSU Murders, their relationship with the office for constitutional protection (Verfassungschutz) and their reaction and prosecution of the perpetrators. Bonus if you look at Germanys handling of far right groups and people online, in the military and in the police. Extra-credit is if you look how they treat leftist and progressive photojournalists and activists. Extrajudicial searches and wiretapping, smear campaigns, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments