7 ms·

When Dissent Became Treason

103 points by hprotagonist 9y ago

ShabbosGoy 9y ago
> In a strikingly Trumpian fashion, President Wilson himself helped sow suspicion of anything German. Trump is tame and politically correct compared to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was an unabashed racist, who screened "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, a pro-KKK film that portrayed the Klan as a heroic force to control hordes of savage black males that wanted to rape white women.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Birth of a Nation is a restrained work of art compared to the ceaselessly flowing vitriol of Breitbart and Infowars — and those people have the highest levels of endorsement from Trump. Steve Bannon’s film career was directly inspired by Leni Riefenstahl, according to his former colleagues. Watching Birth of a Nation in the White House is tame compared to making the propaganda director the chief strategist.
  - stryk 9y ago
    I can't speak on Breitbart, but as far as Infowars goes -- he makes a killing on those supplements he schleps out, and apparently there are a _lot_ of people who buy them[0]. Sure he acts like a wackjob conspiracy theory nut -- but my guess is, judging by 'former employees' cited in articles and especially by the episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast with author Jon Ronson (both know him personally), he doesn't believe most of the nonsense coming out of his mouth, but that's his character/persona niche; catering to those that would be entertained by it. 0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-infowars-supplements-are-overpriced-mundane-vitamins-watered-down/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-infowars-...
    - pavlov 9y ago
      I’m not sure how commercial intent makes him any more palatable? Trump chooses to listen to him regardless.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    I dont like breitbart or infowars - but I think you're possiblly in a different universe than I am.
- sriram_sun 9y ago
  You are correct. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Race_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Race_relations) is the Wikipedia section adding more context to the above comment. Note below that photographs became a requirement for application to federal jobs. The level of discrimination and suppression Black folks suffered over centuries is just appalling. "Several historians have spotlighted consistent examples in the public record of Wilson's overtly racist policies and political appointments, such as segregationists he placed in his cabinet.[274][275][276][277][278] According to scholars, Wilson believed that slavery was wrong on economic labor grounds, rather than for moral reasons.[278] They also argue that he idealized the slavery system in the South, viewing masters as patient with "indolent" (i.e. lazy) slaves.[278] In terms of Reconstruction, Wilson held the common southern view that the South was demoralized by Northern carpetbaggers and that overreach on the part of the Radical Republicans justified extreme measures to reassert Democratic national and state governments.[279][280][281] WWI draft card,the lower left corner to be removed by men of African background to help keep military segregated While president of Princeton University, Wilson had discouraged blacks from applying for admission, preferring to keep the peace among white students and alumni.[282] Wilson's History of the American People (1901) dismissed lynchings committed by the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as a lawless reaction to a lawless period. The President defended them, writing that "[the Klan] began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action".[283] Wilson's War Department drafted hundreds of thousands of blacks into the army, giving them equal pay with whites, but in accord with military policy from the Civil War through the Second World War, kept them in all-black units with white officers, and kept the great majority out of combat.[284] When a delegation of blacks protested the discriminatory actions, Wilson told them "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1918, W. E. B. Du Bois—a leader of the NAACP who had campaigned for Wilson believing he was a "liberal southerner"—was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations; DuBois accepted, but he failed his Army physical and did not serve.[285][286] By 1916, Du Bois opposed Wilson, charging that his first term had seen "the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that [blacks] had experienced since the Civil War."[286] Cabinet heads appointed by President Wilson re-segregated restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. During Wilson's presidency, the film The Birth of a Nation (1915) became the first motion picture to be in screened in the White House.[287] The film, while revolutionary in its cinematic technique, glorified the Ku Klux Klan and portrayed blacks as uncouth and uncivilized. After seeing the film, Wilson felt betrayed by his old friend Thomas Dixon Jr., who wrote two books the movie was based on, and did not like or endorse the film; he tried to stop its showing during the World War.[288] Biographer Cooper rejects the claim first made in 1937 by a magazine writer who said that Wilson remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true"; an eye witness reports that Wilson said nothing.[289][290] During Wilson's term, segregation was ordered in the Washington offices of the Navy, the Treasury, and the Postmaster General. Then suddenly, photographs became required for all new federal job applicants. After black leaders pressed him, President Wilson explained he was trying to "reduce friction," and that he "sincerely believe[d] it to be in their interest."[291] Under Wilson, racial segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired. Employees who were downgraded were transferred to the dead letter office, where they did not interact with the public. The few African Americans who remained at the main post offices were put to work behind screens, out of customers' sight.[292]"
shadowmore 9y ago
This is what Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) refers to when he says that our society is split down the middle, watching two different movies on the same screen. Some see: "As our newspapers and TV screens overflow with choleric attacks by President Trump on the media..." While others see: "As our corporate, left-aligned media powerhouses overflow our news feeds with biased/false statements about President Trump..." Ultimately, this just goes to show that the media has become a protected class, which -- just in case it isn't evident -- is a bad thing. The news outlets that Trump attacks are not independent little offices run by scrappy street journalists, but enormous corporate behemoths with clear cut political alignments and agendas, with goals so identical that you literally see the exact same wording in politicized headlines across several major networks. This goes for both the left and the right (though the proportion is lopsided to the left). The real journalists are the ones being demonized by the media and government alike (that's how you know they're reporting something actually being hidden away from the people), some of whom are living out their lives locked up in embassies.
- luxuryballs 9y ago
  I'd say that this article is also attacking Trump by making the jump from 'he criticizes the media' to floating the idea that he probably wants to use the force of law to jail and silence them.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    Trump has explicitly said that he wants to do that http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/comey-memo-press-jailed-trump/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/comey-memo-press-jail...
    - txcwpalpha 9y ago
      The somewhat funny thing is that the article you linked kind of supports the person you replied to, because the article makes statements like this: > But, the suggestion from a sitting President of the United States to the FBI Director that journalists be jailed for reporting on classified information is, in and of itself, a stunning statement that goes beyond even Trump's most virulent anti-media statements to date. This is some pretty strong "how dare he?! Trump is making wild, evil statements that no other president would ever make!" rhetoric, and it's also absurd considering Obama's (and Bush's) entire presidency was plagued with issues where he wanted to prosecute reporters that reported on classified information [1]. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-...
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Everyone in favor of banning certain speech based on its content should consider this article. When you open the door to banning speech based on content, the government will happily define something speech it does not like as "treason" or "hate speech" or whatever the favored term is. People "shouting fire in theater" is not protected speech as a way to say that free speech protections are limited with respect to certain content. This phrase comes from Schenck vs United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States that ruled that it was Constitutional to arrest someone for distributing anti-draft fliers. So be very careful what you wish for with regard to limits on free speech, you just might get it.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  What are you talking about? There are obvious and practical limits on 'free speech'. In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a "fighting words" doctrine ensuring that speech which is by its nature injurious or likely to cause breach of the peace is not protected. An excerpt from the 9-0 decision makes a pretty concise case, especially the latter part: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' [Cantwell v. Connecticut]" https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findlaw.com/US/315/568.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findl... We can argue about definitions of 'obscene', 'likely to cause a breach of the peace', etc. But to treat freedom of speech like an unassailable, all-or-nothing fundamental assumption is not helpful.
dkhenry 9y ago
I think this is a good article to remind us of how fast hate can spread, but I don't think it applied to Trump and the alt-right. By far they are a fringe movement, whose impact is grossly exaggerated. When I look around for the "popular" uprising looking to censor speech I don't see Trump and alt-right racists. I see the antifa and massive amounts of liberal activists that are justifying censorship, violence, hate, racism, and bigotry. I think this is a warning, but its a warning of whoever comes next. We need to be vigilant to make sure when trump is ousted he isn't replaced by a group who is even worse and has the backing of a frothed mob.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The sitting President of the United States is a fringe movement? How does that make any sense?
  - dkhenry 9y ago
    Its only the most sound proof of echo chambers that someone thinks everyone who voted for Trump is a member of the alt-right, and a fascist.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Sure, but you included Trump himself in that, and with ~63 million votes, he's definitely not a fringe movement.
      - dkhenry 9y ago
        I see what you mean now, you are correct there are parts of the Trump movement that are more mainstream, but this article and others try to lump all 63 million voters, and anyone who supports any of his policies into the extreme fringe of hate groups that also support him ( which he hasn't distanced himself from enough )
tj-teej 9y ago
I think there's a hubris to the idea that one can "ban speech" - you only ban the speech in the forum you can ban it in. Banning speech in public only drives it underground and reduces the possibility of argument.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
yahna 9y ago
> German measles “Liberty measles.” odd thing to rename. reminds me of freedom fries.

103 points by hprotagonist 9y ago

> In a strikingly Trumpian fashion, President Wilson himself helped sow suspicion of anything German. Trump is tame and politically correct compared to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was an unabashed racist, who screened "Birth of a Nation" in the White House, a pro-KKK film that portrayed the Klan as a heroic force to control hordes of savage black males that wanted to rape white women.

pavlov 9y ago
Birth of a Nation is a restrained work of art compared to the ceaselessly flowing vitriol of Breitbart and Infowars — and those people have the highest levels of endorsement from Trump. Steve Bannon’s film career was directly inspired by Leni Riefenstahl, according to his former colleagues. Watching Birth of a Nation in the White House is tame compared to making the propaganda director the chief strategist.
- stryk 9y ago
  I can't speak on Breitbart, but as far as Infowars goes -- he makes a killing on those supplements he schleps out, and apparently there are a _lot_ of people who buy them[0]. Sure he acts like a wackjob conspiracy theory nut -- but my guess is, judging by 'former employees' cited in articles and especially by the episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast with author Jon Ronson (both know him personally), he doesn't believe most of the nonsense coming out of his mouth, but that's his character/persona niche; catering to those that would be entertained by it. 0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-infowars-supplements-are-overpriced-mundane-vitamins-watered-down/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alex-jones-infowars-...
  - pavlov 9y ago
    I’m not sure how commercial intent makes him any more palatable? Trump chooses to listen to him regardless.
- Aloha 9y ago
  I dont like breitbart or infowars - but I think you're possiblly in a different universe than I am.
sriram_sun 9y ago
You are correct. Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Race_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson#Race_relations) is the Wikipedia section adding more context to the above comment. Note below that photographs became a requirement for application to federal jobs. The level of discrimination and suppression Black folks suffered over centuries is just appalling. "Several historians have spotlighted consistent examples in the public record of Wilson's overtly racist policies and political appointments, such as segregationists he placed in his cabinet.[274][275][276][277][278] According to scholars, Wilson believed that slavery was wrong on economic labor grounds, rather than for moral reasons.[278] They also argue that he idealized the slavery system in the South, viewing masters as patient with "indolent" (i.e. lazy) slaves.[278] In terms of Reconstruction, Wilson held the common southern view that the South was demoralized by Northern carpetbaggers and that overreach on the part of the Radical Republicans justified extreme measures to reassert Democratic national and state governments.[279][280][281] WWI draft card,the lower left corner to be removed by men of African background to help keep military segregated While president of Princeton University, Wilson had discouraged blacks from applying for admission, preferring to keep the peace among white students and alumni.[282] Wilson's History of the American People (1901) dismissed lynchings committed by the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as a lawless reaction to a lawless period. The President defended them, writing that "[the Klan] began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action".[283] Wilson's War Department drafted hundreds of thousands of blacks into the army, giving them equal pay with whites, but in accord with military policy from the Civil War through the Second World War, kept them in all-black units with white officers, and kept the great majority out of combat.[284] When a delegation of blacks protested the discriminatory actions, Wilson told them "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1918, W. E. B. Du Bois—a leader of the NAACP who had campaigned for Wilson believing he was a "liberal southerner"—was offered an Army commission in charge of dealing with race relations; DuBois accepted, but he failed his Army physical and did not serve.[285][286] By 1916, Du Bois opposed Wilson, charging that his first term had seen "the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that [blacks] had experienced since the Civil War."[286] Cabinet heads appointed by President Wilson re-segregated restrooms and cafeterias in their buildings. During Wilson's presidency, the film The Birth of a Nation (1915) became the first motion picture to be in screened in the White House.[287] The film, while revolutionary in its cinematic technique, glorified the Ku Klux Klan and portrayed blacks as uncouth and uncivilized. After seeing the film, Wilson felt betrayed by his old friend Thomas Dixon Jr., who wrote two books the movie was based on, and did not like or endorse the film; he tried to stop its showing during the World War.[288] Biographer Cooper rejects the claim first made in 1937 by a magazine writer who said that Wilson remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true"; an eye witness reports that Wilson said nothing.[289][290] During Wilson's term, segregation was ordered in the Washington offices of the Navy, the Treasury, and the Postmaster General. Then suddenly, photographs became required for all new federal job applicants. After black leaders pressed him, President Wilson explained he was trying to "reduce friction," and that he "sincerely believe[d] it to be in their interest."[291] Under Wilson, racial segregation was quickly implemented at the Post Office Department. Many African American employees were downgraded and even fired. Employees who were downgraded were transferred to the dead letter office, where they did not interact with the public. The few African Americans who remained at the main post offices were put to work behind screens, out of customers' sight.[292]"

shadowmore 9y ago

This is what Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy) refers to when he says that our society is split down the middle, watching two different movies on the same screen. Some see: "As our newspapers and TV screens overflow with choleric attacks by President Trump on the media..." While others see: "As our corporate, left-aligned media powerhouses overflow our news feeds with biased/false statements about President Trump..." Ultimately, this just goes to show that the media has become a protected class, which -- just in case it isn't evident -- is a bad thing. The news outlets that Trump attacks are not independent little offices run by scrappy street journalists, but enormous corporate behemoths with clear cut political alignments and agendas, with goals so identical that you literally see the exact same wording in politicized headlines across several major networks. This goes for both the left and the right (though the proportion is lopsided to the left). The real journalists are the ones being demonized by the media and government alike (that's how you know they're reporting something actually being hidden away from the people), some of whom are living out their lives locked up in embassies.

luxuryballs 9y ago
I'd say that this article is also attacking Trump by making the jump from 'he criticizes the media' to floating the idea that he probably wants to use the force of law to jail and silence them.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  Trump has explicitly said that he wants to do that http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/comey-memo-press-jailed-trump/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/comey-memo-press-jail...
  - txcwpalpha 9y ago
    The somewhat funny thing is that the article you linked kind of supports the person you replied to, because the article makes statements like this: > But, the suggestion from a sitting President of the United States to the FBI Director that journalists be jailed for reporting on classified information is, in and of itself, a stunning statement that goes beyond even Trump's most virulent anti-media statements to date. This is some pretty strong "how dare he?! Trump is making wild, evil statements that no other president would ever make!" rhetoric, and it's also absurd considering Obama's (and Bush's) entire presidency was plagued with issues where he wanted to prosecute reporters that reported on classified information [1]. 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Everyone in favor of banning certain speech based on its content should consider this article. When you open the door to banning speech based on content, the government will happily define something speech it does not like as "treason" or "hate speech" or whatever the favored term is. People "shouting fire in theater" is not protected speech as a way to say that free speech protections are limited with respect to certain content. This phrase comes from Schenck vs United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States that ruled that it was Constitutional to arrest someone for distributing anti-draft fliers. So be very careful what you wish for with regard to limits on free speech, you just might get it.

leggomylibro 9y ago
What are you talking about? There are obvious and practical limits on 'free speech'. In fact, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a "fighting words" doctrine ensuring that speech which is by its nature injurious or likely to cause breach of the peace is not protected. An excerpt from the 9-0 decision makes a pretty concise case, especially the latter part: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' [Cantwell v. Connecticut]" https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findlaw.com/US/315/568.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080906001323/http://laws.findl... We can argue about definitions of 'obscene', 'likely to cause a breach of the peace', etc. But to treat freedom of speech like an unassailable, all-or-nothing fundamental assumption is not helpful.

dkhenry 9y ago

I think this is a good article to remind us of how fast hate can spread, but I don't think it applied to Trump and the alt-right. By far they are a fringe movement, whose impact is grossly exaggerated. When I look around for the "popular" uprising looking to censor speech I don't see Trump and alt-right racists. I see the antifa and massive amounts of liberal activists that are justifying censorship, violence, hate, racism, and bigotry. I think this is a warning, but its a warning of whoever comes next. We need to be vigilant to make sure when trump is ousted he isn't replaced by a group who is even worse and has the backing of a frothed mob.

mikeash 9y ago
The sitting President of the United States is a fringe movement? How does that make any sense?
- dkhenry 9y ago
  Its only the most sound proof of echo chambers that someone thinks everyone who voted for Trump is a member of the alt-right, and a fascist.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Sure, but you included Trump himself in that, and with ~63 million votes, he's definitely not a fringe movement.
    - dkhenry 9y ago
      I see what you mean now, you are correct there are parts of the Trump movement that are more mainstream, but this article and others try to lump all 63 million voters, and anyone who supports any of his policies into the extreme fringe of hate groups that also support him ( which he hasn't distanced himself from enough )

tj-teej 9y ago

I think there's a hubris to the idea that one can "ban speech" - you only ban the speech in the forum you can ban it in. Banning speech in public only drives it underground and reduces the possibility of argument.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

yahna 9y ago

> German measles “Liberty measles.” odd thing to rename. reminds me of freedom fries.