5 ms·

America has a problem with right-wing terrorism. What I find the weirdest, as a foreign outlooker is how it’s defended. Nobody had any problems with ISIS getti

America has a problem with right-wing terrorism. What I find the weirdest, as a foreign outlooker is how it’s defended. Nobody had any problems with ISIS getting censored off the internet, but these right-wing nut jobs somehow have a right to spread their equally harmful propaganda? I don’t get it.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Well there are a few crucial differences - ISIS started as an illegitimate foreign combatant organization and later a defacto nation denied recognition due to both usurping existing ones and being egregiously horrible that no would acknowledge them essentially. They were outside due process because they weren't subject to US laws in the first place. And if they were they would unquestionably be guilty of sedition. The legitimacy of a takedown is thus clear. Meanwhile while horrible the propaganda organizations stay within the law technically - accusing George Soros of creating AIDS would be a civil matter that is hard to prove. Going against due process is a major taboo for a reason - Al Capone was known for what he was for quite a while but they could only prove tax evasion to put him away. Not to mention pragmatic "the Devil and Daniel Webster" reasons for this. Any measures that could give shortcuts against propaganda can be used against anyone who reports inconvenient facts.
DanielBMarkham 8y ago
I think it would be useful to take an example that nobody likes like ISIS. Should ISIS be taken off the internet? What the heck does that even mean? Do people wear badges saying "I'm a member of ISIS, don't listen to me?" I should hope not. The labels we put on people are probably not the same labels they put on themselves. Sticking people in boxes and beating the hell out of the boxes may feel good from the outside...but it sure sucks if you get stuck in the box and didn't want to be there. So instead of this simplistic labeling of folks, how about we act based on behavior? That is, you're welcome to blow off steam all you want. Let's say I hate clowns (I do not. I love clowns.) I might get online and say something like "Those damned clowns! We should shoot every one of them!" Now even if I were a clown-hater (I am not), this is not a call for violence. It's an angry person making poor word choices. If, however, I got online and started asking people to take action "Meet me down next to the circus in an hour...bring your water guns!" then I am no longer just talking. America is fine with people just talking, and in the most hateful way imaginable. We are not fine with people encouraging or planning out violence. No matter what some idiot will tell you on the internet, we assuredly did not fight the Nazis in WWII. We fought Nazi Germany. Many of those same Nazis we fought stayed in power (after being vetted as being non-violent). Many of those same men who fought Nazi Germany came home to be policemen, protecting American Nazis while they marched in the streets saying all sorts of vile and hateful things. We're like that. We're like that because we watched country after country go down the other route, where the government decided what was okay or not to say. It never ends well. In fact, it usually results in even more violence. You don't get rid of sick people by putting a muzzle on them. Get them out in the public square where they can engage with the rest of us. Who knows? Maybe some can be helped. That would be the best outcome, wouldn't it? To create a path for people who are angry and prone to violence (but haven't done anything wrong yet) to get better and become a productive member of society?
- eksemplar 8y ago
  Your history lesson is a little flawed though. The right wasn’t unable to speak their minds in Germany, in fact they spent a good decade talking their hate, before they started using violence. It wasn’t until after the war Germany started to censor things, and today they’re arguable leading the free world in terms of liberal values. The political views on individual rights and freedoms in modern Germany are a lot more similar to the American revolutionaries than those of modern day America after all. I think ISIS makes such a good example because it brings out the flaws of the anti-censorship arguments. Almost no one is opposed to censorship as long as it’s for something they turly disagree with, and it’s really hard to defend ISIS in any level. You’ll find some anarchists who want nothing to be censored, but you’ll find very few advocates of places like GAP that also defend the rights of ISIS, even though the rhetoric against entire religious groups like Jews is actually a lot worse on GAP than they are on ISIS twitter. Don’t get me wrong, im not advocating for censorship, I just think the difference in opinion within the US is weird. I mean, how can you both want censorship for your opponents while simultaneously wanting complete freedom of expression for your own views?
  - DanielBMarkham 8y ago
    It's editorial license. Yes, we must paint with a broad brush in order to get comments under three thousand words. The allies made sure there were restrictions in Germany on what could be said and how political parties could act, just like we did in Japan. In fact our response was quite kind in comparison to the measures the Soviets took. We didn't want to have to come back and fight yet another European war. I believe we succeeded in that goal, perhaps with outcomes we did not anticipate. I do not want censorship based on the content of ideas, and I'd argue -- strongly -- that other folks educated in the American tradition do not as well. We used to have plenty of civil liberties organizations, such as the ACLU, that would also strongly argue these points. You might recall that John Adams (the president) first gained notoriety by defending British soldiers accused of killing Colonists. We take these things seriously. There's a long, long line of historical and literary works that support this view. I think what's happened, if anything, is the private, living-room idle chat of the emotionally-disturbed becomes instantaneously published world-wide for others to consume. And I'm not talking Nazis or ISIS here, I'm talking people who are shocked and angry about the things some of these people do. These folks, who constitute a greater threat to the Republic than a few terrorists ever did, are looking for solutions. Any solution. And they're willing to entertain drastic measures. You read this from overseas and suddenly we want censorship for our opponents. We do not. That's not saying that a lot of people won't say otherwise online, especially after something like this has happened. People say stuff online. With hundreds of millions of people, they say a lot of things. Cherry-picking is a bad habit to get into if you value introspection. Nobody wants censorship. Those who do should not be holding public office, as it is impossible to hold such a belief and simultaneously protect and defend the Constitution. Look, we've tried. Oh boy, we've made this mistake as well. The Sedition Act of both 1798 and 1918, for instance. These are laws we are not proud of. In fact, they almost started a second Revolution. But looking at the pattern overall, we're not those people. Hopefully we're not becoming them again either. Those were dark times.
krapp 8y ago
ISIS is Islamic, and right-wing extremists tend to be anti-Muslim, so such groups will defend their allies and ignore attacks against their enemies. Also "right-wing extremism" has deep cultural resonance in the US, with roots in the militia movement, white supremacy and Christian dominionism, all of which play into a romantic ideal of the lone American cowboy revolutionary "watering the tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants." It's easier to garner sympathy for such people as patriots than others who might commit violence in the name of another religion or who aren't "domestic." Bear in mind that, in the mainstream of the US, most people object to ISIS and the "right wing nut-jobs." What you see on the internet is not the mainstream but a self-selected fringe.
Kaveren 8y ago
The Constitution protects your right to freedom of speech. You can't censor someone based on their personal opinions. If you hate Jews, you can say you hate Jews. If you hate Trump, you can say you hate Trump. The First Amendment may just be the greatest achievement of all-time of any government. The United States is one of the countries with almost full freedom of speech.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
With such a doctrinaire approach, you never will get it. Try reading up on the many efforts during English and European history to constrain free speech and realize how that has been abused by the government so many times. I don't get why you conflate shooting people with free speech in the first place.
philwelch 8y ago
America and Europe both have problems with Islamic terrorism, too, and yet neither place censors the “harmful propaganda” of radicalist imams. What does get censored is anything that can be interpreted as critical of Islam, eg https://m.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749 https://m.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-doe... Democrats have been blaming right-wing rhetoric for domestic terrorism ever since Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It’s a transparent political power play.
- eksemplar 8y ago
  I’m not sure why you think this is relevant. You can’t get out of the trouble you’re in for stealing candy at the store by saying the other children did it too. I’m well aware there are other problems, but I think that’s actually part of my original point. ISIS is a problem, but it’s a problem we’re actively fighting. No one seem to be taking the radical right in America serious in any manner. Even though these years, the radical right is killing quite a lot of people. I live in Scandinavia, the worst terror attack ever in our part of the works was Brevik, a far right terrorist who murdered hundred of political youths in what he viewed as a crusade against the left. In my own country we’ve seen an increase in hate crimes committed by the right being doubled every year since 2015. So it’s not like we’re not familiar with the problem, but unlike America we actually treat these people as a serious threat to our democracy. The radical right, the radical left and radical Islamists can all be dangerous at the same time, and I think they are, what I don’t get is why you treat them so differently.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    It’s relevant because the underlying principles of not tarring vast populations with collective responsibility, or silencing entire categories of ideology, in response to the acts of a few extremists is completely abandoned by the left when they have something to gain from it. If right-wing terrorists are treated differently by the US government, it is probably because there are not large organizations of them, nor are there groups of them overseas that we can engage militarily. When there have been large, organized right-wing terror groups like The Order and the Aryan Nations, they’ve been vigorously investigated and shut down in accordance with normal law enforcement. Taking the further step of outlawing free expression or infringing upon the freedom of association—even when truly reprehensible ideologies are at issue—is not a step that any Western government has taken for any other terrorist threat.
dtwest 8y ago
Free speech is an extremely popular cultural ideal in America. However, there is a distinction the courts have made over the years that prohibits a call to action for a violent act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action ISIS recruitment obviously violates this. If the right wing propaganda violates this, it is also illegal. I also don't think America has (or believes it has) a right-wing terrorism problem. Sure, any bit of terrorism is a problem, but there seems to be about 20 murders a year attributed to right-wing terrorism in a country of 300+ million people. (If you live in a country of 15 million, that would be like 1 person/year). For comparison, cities like Chicago will have 20 people murdered in one week in the summer. My point is just that you can't ask the American people to part ways with one of their most cherished political ideals, to fight a problem which is not viewed as much of a threat.
liftbigweights 8y ago
> America has a problem with right-wing terrorism. We really don't. > What I find the weirdest, as a foreign outlooker is how it’s defended. As a foreigner, what makes you think you know what america is really like? Just because of the nonsense you see on the news? > Nobody had any problems with ISIS getting censored off the internet I did and many americans did. I don't believe in censorship. The easiest way to combat extremism is to show it. > but these right-wing nut jobs somehow have a right to spread their equally harmful propaganda? If it is harmful, isn't it better to discuss it? To put it out in the open? > I don’t get it. My advice is to take a class in philosophy, history and educate yourself. People who think like you are why nazi germany and the soviet union existed. "Harmful propaganda" is the excuse every authoritarian uses to enslave their people. "Harmful propaganda" is itself harmful propaganda. How do the saudis silence lgbt? By saying it is harmful propaganda. How do the chinese silence religion? By saying it's harmful propaganda. How do the russians silence democratic advocates? By saying it is harmful propaganda. If there is harmful propaganda, then lets bring it to light and expose it. Only sneaky authoritarians with ulterior motives use "harmful propaganda" as an excuse to curtail people's rights. A vegan shot up youtube a few months ago. Is veganism harmful propaganda? Should we ban all vegan content? Of course not. Funnily enough, you have so much in common with the right-wingers you claim to hate. They hate "harmful propaganda too" and want it censored.
- mcphage 8y ago
  > The easiest way to combat extremism is to show it. I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that that is true, and plenty of evidence that it is not. I know a lot of people take it as axiomatic truth, but I don't think it should be.
- malmsteen 8y ago
  The main argument against what you say is that you believe that a bad idea will diseappear by itself if its in the open. Its not and theres thousands of examples to show that it can propagates and contaminate parts large chunks of society(historically: "gays are sicks", "blacks are not humans". More recently: "jews control the world" is making a surprising comeback in parts of europe). Whereas when you silence it, it diseappear overnight and sometimes ots a good thing. I personally think the "hate speech" classification and ban on is a good thing. I dont agree full freedom of speech is a good thing. I agree however that its stupid to associate too much killers with the ideology they claim to belong. They are just psychos / weirdos most of the time.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Well there are a few crucial differences - ISIS started as an illegitimate foreign combatant organization and later a defacto nation denied recognition due to both usurping existing ones and being egregiously horrible that no would acknowledge them essentially. They were outside due process because they weren't subject to US laws in the first place. And if they were they would unquestionably be guilty of sedition. The legitimacy of a takedown is thus clear. Meanwhile while horrible the propaganda organizations stay within the law technically - accusing George Soros of creating AIDS would be a civil matter that is hard to prove. Going against due process is a major taboo for a reason - Al Capone was known for what he was for quite a while but they could only prove tax evasion to put him away. Not to mention pragmatic "the Devil and Daniel Webster" reasons for this. Any measures that could give shortcuts against propaganda can be used against anyone who reports inconvenient facts.

DanielBMarkham 8y ago

I think it would be useful to take an example that nobody likes like ISIS. Should ISIS be taken off the internet? What the heck does that even mean? Do people wear badges saying "I'm a member of ISIS, don't listen to me?" I should hope not. The labels we put on people are probably not the same labels they put on themselves. Sticking people in boxes and beating the hell out of the boxes may feel good from the outside...but it sure sucks if you get stuck in the box and didn't want to be there. So instead of this simplistic labeling of folks, how about we act based on behavior? That is, you're welcome to blow off steam all you want. Let's say I hate clowns (I do not. I love clowns.) I might get online and say something like "Those damned clowns! We should shoot every one of them!" Now even if I were a clown-hater (I am not), this is not a call for violence. It's an angry person making poor word choices. If, however, I got online and started asking people to take action "Meet me down next to the circus in an hour...bring your water guns!" then I am no longer just talking. America is fine with people just talking, and in the most hateful way imaginable. We are not fine with people encouraging or planning out violence. No matter what some idiot will tell you on the internet, we assuredly did not fight the Nazis in WWII. We fought Nazi Germany. Many of those same Nazis we fought stayed in power (after being vetted as being non-violent). Many of those same men who fought Nazi Germany came home to be policemen, protecting American Nazis while they marched in the streets saying all sorts of vile and hateful things. We're like that. We're like that because we watched country after country go down the other route, where the government decided what was okay or not to say. It never ends well. In fact, it usually results in even more violence. You don't get rid of sick people by putting a muzzle on them. Get them out in the public square where they can engage with the rest of us. Who knows? Maybe some can be helped. That would be the best outcome, wouldn't it? To create a path for people who are angry and prone to violence (but haven't done anything wrong yet) to get better and become a productive member of society?

eksemplar 8y ago
Your history lesson is a little flawed though. The right wasn’t unable to speak their minds in Germany, in fact they spent a good decade talking their hate, before they started using violence. It wasn’t until after the war Germany started to censor things, and today they’re arguable leading the free world in terms of liberal values. The political views on individual rights and freedoms in modern Germany are a lot more similar to the American revolutionaries than those of modern day America after all. I think ISIS makes such a good example because it brings out the flaws of the anti-censorship arguments. Almost no one is opposed to censorship as long as it’s for something they turly disagree with, and it’s really hard to defend ISIS in any level. You’ll find some anarchists who want nothing to be censored, but you’ll find very few advocates of places like GAP that also defend the rights of ISIS, even though the rhetoric against entire religious groups like Jews is actually a lot worse on GAP than they are on ISIS twitter. Don’t get me wrong, im not advocating for censorship, I just think the difference in opinion within the US is weird. I mean, how can you both want censorship for your opponents while simultaneously wanting complete freedom of expression for your own views?
- DanielBMarkham 8y ago
  It's editorial license. Yes, we must paint with a broad brush in order to get comments under three thousand words. The allies made sure there were restrictions in Germany on what could be said and how political parties could act, just like we did in Japan. In fact our response was quite kind in comparison to the measures the Soviets took. We didn't want to have to come back and fight yet another European war. I believe we succeeded in that goal, perhaps with outcomes we did not anticipate. I do not want censorship based on the content of ideas, and I'd argue -- strongly -- that other folks educated in the American tradition do not as well. We used to have plenty of civil liberties organizations, such as the ACLU, that would also strongly argue these points. You might recall that John Adams (the president) first gained notoriety by defending British soldiers accused of killing Colonists. We take these things seriously. There's a long, long line of historical and literary works that support this view. I think what's happened, if anything, is the private, living-room idle chat of the emotionally-disturbed becomes instantaneously published world-wide for others to consume. And I'm not talking Nazis or ISIS here, I'm talking people who are shocked and angry about the things some of these people do. These folks, who constitute a greater threat to the Republic than a few terrorists ever did, are looking for solutions. Any solution. And they're willing to entertain drastic measures. You read this from overseas and suddenly we want censorship for our opponents. We do not. That's not saying that a lot of people won't say otherwise online, especially after something like this has happened. People say stuff online. With hundreds of millions of people, they say a lot of things. Cherry-picking is a bad habit to get into if you value introspection. Nobody wants censorship. Those who do should not be holding public office, as it is impossible to hold such a belief and simultaneously protect and defend the Constitution. Look, we've tried. Oh boy, we've made this mistake as well. The Sedition Act of both 1798 and 1918, for instance. These are laws we are not proud of. In fact, they almost started a second Revolution. But looking at the pattern overall, we're not those people. Hopefully we're not becoming them again either. Those were dark times.

krapp 8y ago

ISIS is Islamic, and right-wing extremists tend to be anti-Muslim, so such groups will defend their allies and ignore attacks against their enemies. Also "right-wing extremism" has deep cultural resonance in the US, with roots in the militia movement, white supremacy and Christian dominionism, all of which play into a romantic ideal of the lone American cowboy revolutionary "watering the tree of Liberty with the blood of tyrants." It's easier to garner sympathy for such people as patriots than others who might commit violence in the name of another religion or who aren't "domestic." Bear in mind that, in the mainstream of the US, most people object to ISIS and the "right wing nut-jobs." What you see on the internet is not the mainstream but a self-selected fringe.

Kaveren 8y ago

The Constitution protects your right to freedom of speech. You can't censor someone based on their personal opinions. If you hate Jews, you can say you hate Jews. If you hate Trump, you can say you hate Trump. The First Amendment may just be the greatest achievement of all-time of any government. The United States is one of the countries with almost full freedom of speech.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

With such a doctrinaire approach, you never will get it. Try reading up on the many efforts during English and European history to constrain free speech and realize how that has been abused by the government so many times. I don't get why you conflate shooting people with free speech in the first place.

philwelch 8y ago

America and Europe both have problems with Islamic terrorism, too, and yet neither place censors the “harmful propaganda” of radicalist imams. What does get censored is anything that can be interpreted as critical of Islam, eg https://m.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-does-not-fall-within-freedom-of-speech-european-court/a-46050749 https://m.dw.com/en/calling-prophet-muhammad-a-pedophile-doe... Democrats have been blaming right-wing rhetoric for domestic terrorism ever since Bill Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It’s a transparent political power play.

eksemplar 8y ago
I’m not sure why you think this is relevant. You can’t get out of the trouble you’re in for stealing candy at the store by saying the other children did it too. I’m well aware there are other problems, but I think that’s actually part of my original point. ISIS is a problem, but it’s a problem we’re actively fighting. No one seem to be taking the radical right in America serious in any manner. Even though these years, the radical right is killing quite a lot of people. I live in Scandinavia, the worst terror attack ever in our part of the works was Brevik, a far right terrorist who murdered hundred of political youths in what he viewed as a crusade against the left. In my own country we’ve seen an increase in hate crimes committed by the right being doubled every year since 2015. So it’s not like we’re not familiar with the problem, but unlike America we actually treat these people as a serious threat to our democracy. The radical right, the radical left and radical Islamists can all be dangerous at the same time, and I think they are, what I don’t get is why you treat them so differently.
- philwelch 8y ago
  It’s relevant because the underlying principles of not tarring vast populations with collective responsibility, or silencing entire categories of ideology, in response to the acts of a few extremists is completely abandoned by the left when they have something to gain from it. If right-wing terrorists are treated differently by the US government, it is probably because there are not large organizations of them, nor are there groups of them overseas that we can engage militarily. When there have been large, organized right-wing terror groups like The Order and the Aryan Nations, they’ve been vigorously investigated and shut down in accordance with normal law enforcement. Taking the further step of outlawing free expression or infringing upon the freedom of association—even when truly reprehensible ideologies are at issue—is not a step that any Western government has taken for any other terrorist threat.

dtwest 8y ago

Free speech is an extremely popular cultural ideal in America. However, there is a distinction the courts have made over the years that prohibits a call to action for a violent act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action ISIS recruitment obviously violates this. If the right wing propaganda violates this, it is also illegal. I also don't think America has (or believes it has) a right-wing terrorism problem. Sure, any bit of terrorism is a problem, but there seems to be about 20 murders a year attributed to right-wing terrorism in a country of 300+ million people. (If you live in a country of 15 million, that would be like 1 person/year). For comparison, cities like Chicago will have 20 people murdered in one week in the summer. My point is just that you can't ask the American people to part ways with one of their most cherished political ideals, to fight a problem which is not viewed as much of a threat.

liftbigweights 8y ago

> America has a problem with right-wing terrorism. We really don't. > What I find the weirdest, as a foreign outlooker is how it’s defended. As a foreigner, what makes you think you know what america is really like? Just because of the nonsense you see on the news? > Nobody had any problems with ISIS getting censored off the internet I did and many americans did. I don't believe in censorship. The easiest way to combat extremism is to show it. > but these right-wing nut jobs somehow have a right to spread their equally harmful propaganda? If it is harmful, isn't it better to discuss it? To put it out in the open? > I don’t get it. My advice is to take a class in philosophy, history and educate yourself. People who think like you are why nazi germany and the soviet union existed. "Harmful propaganda" is the excuse every authoritarian uses to enslave their people. "Harmful propaganda" is itself harmful propaganda. How do the saudis silence lgbt? By saying it is harmful propaganda. How do the chinese silence religion? By saying it's harmful propaganda. How do the russians silence democratic advocates? By saying it is harmful propaganda. If there is harmful propaganda, then lets bring it to light and expose it. Only sneaky authoritarians with ulterior motives use "harmful propaganda" as an excuse to curtail people's rights. A vegan shot up youtube a few months ago. Is veganism harmful propaganda? Should we ban all vegan content? Of course not. Funnily enough, you have so much in common with the right-wingers you claim to hate. They hate "harmful propaganda too" and want it censored.

mcphage 8y ago
> The easiest way to combat extremism is to show it. I don't think I've ever seen any evidence that that is true, and plenty of evidence that it is not. I know a lot of people take it as axiomatic truth, but I don't think it should be.
malmsteen 8y ago
The main argument against what you say is that you believe that a bad idea will diseappear by itself if its in the open. Its not and theres thousands of examples to show that it can propagates and contaminate parts large chunks of society(historically: "gays are sicks", "blacks are not humans". More recently: "jews control the world" is making a surprising comeback in parts of europe). Whereas when you silence it, it diseappear overnight and sometimes ots a good thing. I personally think the "hate speech" classification and ban on is a good thing. I dont agree full freedom of speech is a good thing. I agree however that its stupid to associate too much killers with the ideology they claim to belong. They are just psychos / weirdos most of the time.