5 ms·
"Membership" in anything should never be criminalized—that's freedom of association. Animal abuse should be criminalized.
by Wowfunhappy 1y ago
"Membership" in anything should never be criminalized—that's freedom of association. Animal abuse should be criminalized.
- omcnoe 1y agoWe essentially criminalize membership in other kinds of criminal groups centered around producing and sharing illegal content, the same should apply to animal abuse.
- hshdhdhehd 1y agoYeah but do you need to criminalise membership, or does things like conspiracy, accomplace etc. cover it.
- SiempreViernes 1y agoMembership in an organisation can be conclusive evidence you joined a criminal enterprise/criminal conspiracy, making the the entire debate somewhat moot. But fine, only joining the criminal conspiracy is illegal, being a member can be legal (you always have to join to become a member).
- speed_spread 1y agoYou'll get slander cases of people receiving membership they never applied for. Having your name on some list should never be a crime in itself.
- awesome_dude 1y agoTell that to the members of organisations deemed to be terrorists
- hshdhdhehd 1y agoAlmost every freedom needs exceptions. Better to have freedom in general plus exceptions than no freedom at all. Free speech except yelling fire in the cinema etc.
- timeon 1y agoOk so add this to these "exceptions".
- hshdhdhehd 1y agoI think with conspiracy you dont need to be that specific. Any crime you do as a group is a crime.
- account42 1y agoThat's a particularly bad example to repeat in support of free speech restrictions: > "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).
- berkes 1y ago[flagged]
- actionfromafar 1y agoHow's the health insurance? You got dental?
- cromka 1y agoLike the "ANTIFA"?
- Llamamoe 1y agoYou have a point but we are literally talking about an association whose entire and only raison d'etre is to perpetuate violent crime. Maybe it shouldn't be outright criminal, since people can potentially register for other reasons than to participate, but it definitely should at least be under scrutiny.
- Xelbair 1y agoThe same reasoning could be used against civil rights movement. That's why we don't do that, if our systems are functioning fine.
- hnbad 1y agoCould be? You should look into the history of the Black Panthers. The US government doesn't need to make membership illegal to suppress and destroy political movements.
- ricardobeat 1y agoI don’t mean to defend people joining groups committing any kind of violence, but this is the kind of rhetoric being used by the far-right against their opponents, not only in the US; it is a terrible idea to allow policing based on “assumed intent”.
- the_other 1y agoIt's the same direction of travel as recent UK laws allowing police to stop people preparing to join protests if they think the accused might be planning to e.g. glue themselves to something. IMO this is basically policing thought crimes. It worries me.
- Llamamoe 1y agoRhetoric can be used to justify any action against any group on very arbitrary pretenses, and while I don't think "groups whose primary reason for existing is explicitly to facilitate crime should be closely scrutinized" is particularly dystopian, you're probably right that it could provide a good starting point for a slippery slope of criminalising association with political opposition :/
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago> "Membership" in anything should never be criminalized Conspiracy is the criminalisation of association to commit a crime. Fredom of association doesn't magically mean you won't face consequences for what your association is about.
- hnbad 1y agoMembership in an anti-constitutional organization is a crime under German law btw and I'm pretty sure there are other countries with similar laws. The US does criminalize membership but only as an add-on to other charges (co-conspiracy, basically). Of course in the US this is mostly for going after "gangs" so it's almost exclusively used against Black people.
- mlrtime 1y agoOnly black people are in gangs? What about organized crime, would that be only black people? Your comment was insightful up till the end when you had to make it about race, which it isn't.
- layer8 1y agoRegarding Germany, that’s inaccurate. It’s a crime only if you wilfully (not just out of negligence) provide support for an organization after it has been prohibited. Membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for that. It’s what you actually do for the organization once it’s prohibited that counts.
- KolibriFly 1y agoThe focus should absolutely be on actions, not associations
- Starlevel004 1y agoWe must secure the existence of animal abuse groups and a future for free association.