3 ms·
Hate groups are the problem, not how they express themselves online. I find it odd that it's perfectly legal to be a group with illegal intent. That's the only
by pickingdinner 3y ago
Hate groups are the problem, not how they express themselves online.
I find it odd that it's perfectly legal to be a group with illegal intent. That's the only loophole that needs to be closed.
If a group is deemed to have "intent to harm and endanger others" then anyone who affiliates themselves with them should be deemed likewise, and attended to.
So the issue is of pre-crime. A crime has to happen and speech isn't a crime (although censorship should be, we censor them instead).
But if members of a group have already committed crimes and crimes of hate, then that should be enough to legally impose restrictions on the group and its members, including those that haven't. Maybe not arrest them immediately, but monitoring etc should be perfectly legal (and maybe done already).
All any member has to do is unaffiliate themselves to free themselves from being high risk and attended to by law enforcers.
- dingnuts 3y ago> if members of a group have already committed crimes > then that should be enough to legally impose restrictions on the group and its members This is called "keeping a public nuisance" and it's illegal in many jurisdictions. It's not limited to hate crimes. These conversations about online hate groups would be more productive if people knew what the law was to begin with.
- pickingdinner 3y agook so you and cryptonector below are in disagreemeng. Also I am not claiming I know any laws. I am claiming the law needs to be adjusted, not censorship standards.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cryptonector 3y agoA group intent on committing crimes commits conspiracy, and that is already a crime in most of the U.S.