Charleston Church Massacre

[Phoenix Wright]

you want to jail people for having "hate thoughts"?

[blah the Prussian]

you want to jail people for having "hate thoughts"?

Nah, just making groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis illegal. Not thought crime. Also the public advocation of racist beliefs would be a crime.

[Crysta]

Nah, just making groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis illegal. Not thought crime. Also the public advocation of racist beliefs would be a crime.

Since the first amendment to me is like what the second amendment is to them, I'd be very opposed to this.

The KKK and Neo Nazis would still be around, just not at all visible, and they would likely become even more bitter and resentful.

[Phoenix Wright]

Nah, just making groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis illegal. Not thought crime. Also the public advocation of racist beliefs would be a crime.

as with typical gangs, being a part of the gang itself isn't a crime. though i hate the bloods, crips, and kkk equally, i cannot advocate their silencing. unless the courts see these groups as terrorist threats (which, in each case, is honestly not completely ridiculous), i don't think they should be silenced.

also, i don't trust the government enough to tell me what can and cannot be advocated publicly. today, it's racism. tomorrow, it's space travel. the next, it's defamation of the government itself. it's a slippery slope, yes, but it's happened before in us history, and if we allow groups to scare us to the point that we feel the need to forcibly silence them, it could happen again.

[Klokinator]

but it's happened before in us history, and if we allow groups to scare us to the point that we feel the need to forcibly silence them, it could happen again.

By the way, Phoenix is dead right about this. The government, at one very important point in US history, started silencing those who expressed opinions contrary to what warmongers and others were doing. It was not pleasant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

During the Red Scare of 1918–19, in response to the 1919 anarchist bombings aimed at prominent government officials and businessman, U.S. Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, supported by J. Edgar Hoover, then head of the Justice Department's Enemy Aliens Registration Section, used the Sedition Act of 1918, which extended the Espionage Act to cover a broader range of offenses, to deport several hundred foreign-born in the U.S., including Emma Goldman, to the Soviet Union on a ship the press called the "Soviet Ark".^[3][34][35]

Many of the jailed challenged their convictions based on the U.S. constitutional right to free speech. The Supreme Court disagreed. The Espionage Act limits on free speech were ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 in 1919. Schenck, an anti-war Socialist, had been convicted of violating the Act when he sent anti-draft pamphlets to men eligible for the draft. Although Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes joined the Court majority in upholding Schenck's conviction in 1919, he also introduced the theory that punishment in such cases is limited to political expression that constitutes a "clear and present danger" to the government action at issue. Holmes' opinion is also the origin of the notion that speech equivalent to "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not protected by the First Amendment.

Justice Holmes began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from free speech advocates. He also met the Harvard Law professor Zechariah Chafee and discussed his criticism of Schenck.^[35][36]

It's worth pointing out the Espionage Act is still in place, it just isn't being used. It can however be used at any time.

Also, see here how free speech is dying a slow death all over the world thanks to SJW's and such.

https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[blah the Prussian]

Since the first amendment to me is like what the second amendment is to them, I'd be very opposed to this.

The KKK and Neo Nazis would still be around, just not at all visible, and they would likely become even more bitter and resentful.

What can they do? If we make it harder for them to spread their messages, less people die in tragedies like this.

as with typical gangs, being a part of the gang itself isn't a crime. though i hate the bloods, crips, and kkk equally, i cannot advocate their silencing. unless the courts see these groups as terrorist threats (which, in each case, is honestly not completely ridiculous), i don't think they should be silenced.

also, i don't trust the government enough to tell me what can and cannot be advocated publicly. today, it's racism. tomorrow, it's space travel. the next, it's defamation of the government itself. it's a slippery slope, yes, but it's happened before in us history, and if we allow groups to scare us to the point that we feel the need to forcibly silence them, it could happen again.

Slippery slope fallacy. Ust because we do something, it does not mean we will take it to the extreme by any stretch of the imagination. Finally, I do not see why the KKK should not be considered a terrorist group after this.

@Klokinator: The difference here is that the pacifists and the Communists were not engaging in violent activity. The KKK was, and is. You do make a compelling case, however, by appealing to my hatred of Woodrow Wilson.

Regarding SJWs, that is disheartening to read, and know that I do not advocate that kind of censorship. I do, however, advocate censorship of those who advocate violence against people, such as blacks. This will prevent more tragedies from happening.

Edited June 22, 2015 by blah2127

[Magical CC]

I came across this when browsing twitter this morning.

Its truly terrible when you find that you can't feel safe even within the walls of church. And there's another thing to add to the list of places to be wary. Purely, utterly despicable....

I dont know what kind of material the wall of a church is made of but if it's made of faith then I have to say that it's not a great choice. But since they are in church, may be they are religious people and if they are religious, they must be believe in god. If their god allows them to be killed, may be their god has other plan for them so you shouldnt feel bad for them, no? They are probably happily serving their god right now in heaven.

Also, having trouble past or even trouble present is not a reason for you to kill someone. Law should be fair and square, criminals have to be judged according to the laws, not because the illogical reasons such as sad childhood or anything like that.

Also, America, do something with your gun control law. It's a joke! I dont see how gun can be used to protected people when any nutjob can get gun and just went after innocent people. He certainly didnt ask them: "Hey, do you have a gun so that you can use it to shoot back when I shoot everyone here? No? Too bad, then I will have to look for another church."

Edited June 22, 2015 by Magical CC

[Phoenix Wright]

Slippery slope fallacy. Ust because we do something, it does not mean we will take it to the extreme by any stretch of the imagination. Finally, I do not see why the KKK should not be considered a terrorist group after this.

i know. i said it was. <_<

also, i don't feel like you read my post at all.

[blah the Prussian]

i know. i said it was. <_<

also, i don't feel like you read my post at all.

I don't see why you feel that way. Admittedly my reply was a little rushed, but I responded. Let me reiterate: any group advocating violent action against any person due top their race, religion, gender, et cetera, should be considered a hate group. Any group with members that go through with said violent acts is a terror organization. We seem to be in agreement, to be honest.

[Klokinator]

Stefan Moleneux put out a great video on the subject, as he always does.

[eclipse]

I'm in the process of splitting off the current gun control debate into a new thread, as it's at this point become a rather large topic shift from the original and there was a report about topic derail that I've been remiss in addressing, and actually complicit in continuing.

Nobody will be warned for off-topic, as it was a rather natural progression, but once the split is complete if the topic crops back up here in extended form again, instead of continuing in its new home, then things are fair game. Efforts are going to be made to better keep Serious Discussion threads on-point, and I need to clean up another topic as well that I've been neglecting during the work week, but remember if you see things drifting from the original topic, please report them so they can be handled appropriately.

If, after I'm done, there are some leftovers I missed, PM me personally about them. This topic should go back to discussion of the actual incident and more directly

I'M SORRY BAL! Had a busy weekend, so didn't have time for SF.

What can they do? If we make it harder for them to spread their messages, less people die in tragedies like this.

Silencing them outright won't solve the problem. These sorts of things are passed down from one generation to another, whether it be through parents or real-life social interaction. Education will probably have better results, but will take more time.

I don't think ideas themselves should be banned, but acting upon them when they break laws should be dealt with extremely harshly. I would not be averse to throwing a terrorist modifier in with the hate crime one. IIRC, Roof intentionally left one woman alive so she could tell the others about it. This wasn't something that was done spur-of-the-moment.

[blah the Prussian]

So from the video, it seems like a better home probably would have gone a long way to stop Roof from being such a bastard. So it pretty much backs up what Klokinator said.

@Eclipse: The question is whether the entirety of the Ku Klux Klan should be considered a terror organization. I would argue that yes, it should. I'm not arguing for some Orwellian thought crime system, but I am arguing for a ban on hate speech, defined as speech that advocates for violence towards a group due to their religion, race, ect.

Edited June 22, 2015 by blah2127

[Klokinator]

So from the video, it seems like a better home probably would have gone a long way to stop Roof from being such a bastard. So it pretty much backs up what Klokinator said.

Speaking as someone raised in a broken home and beaten daily (And no, I'm not special, there's millions of others) I can safely say it fucked me up. If anyone wonders why my personality is thorny at best, bipolar asshole at worst, that's why. I often see characteristics in myself that classify me as a potential mass-shooter as well. The difference is that I've lived on my own long enough to heal somewhat, and rather than taking drugs in the form of alcohol/pills, I've made a conscious decision to simply use the internet as much as possible and mingle with society in the real world as little as possible. In truth, I have great social skills and get along great with most people, but it doesn't take much for me to remember how much I loathe many other human beings.

I do try to regulate myself and take responsibility for my own actions though, which is the big difference between myself and a majority of other people with similar histories, as compared to this Roof guy. I still find it hard to completely blame him, when I feel it was the shitty family that molded him into the person he was in the end. I'm still very curious as to what will happen to him now, as he's still alive.

Oh yes, and this reminds me. There are two kinds of people. Those that live through shitty circumstances and say "If I had to live through it, so should everyone else!" and those who say "I had to live through this shitty life, nobody else should have to suffer like this." A person's choice towards one of those will affect everything they do for the rest of their life.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[blah the Prussian]

The question is how exactly did his abusive childhood translate into the racist views that lead to him deliberately targeting a black church? There doesn't really seem to be a connection between that and black on white crime, which is by his own admission what got him pissed in the first place.

[Klokinator]

I heard some tenuous connections to his violent father also being a big racist, but this is one of those things where we just wait for more details to come out. Who knows, maybe he met some racist guy when he was at a really bad spot, and the guy's words latched ahold, causing him to link anger at his father towards anger at blacks. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet it was a more direct connection. Maybe something like his dad beating him and yelling "You're just as useless as [iNSERT BLACK PERSON] from [iNSERT PAST EVENT IN FATHER'S LIFE]!" Who knows? We'll have to wait and see.

Oh actually, Roof did say "The blacks are stealing our women", which sounds like a really specific accusation. That's like "Roof had a girlfriend and she left him for a black guy" kind of specific. Maybe I'm grasping at air, but it seemed oddly specific, not just "You ruined everything great about America!"

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[eclipse]

@Eclipse: The question is whether the entirety of the Ku Klux Klan should be considered a terror organization. I would argue that yes, it should. I'm not arguing for some Orwellian thought crime system, but I am arguing for a ban on hate speech, defined as speech that advocates for violence towards a group due to their religion, race, ect.

While I STRONGLY disagree with their premise, I'm perfectly fine with letting them stew in their hatred - as long as no other criminal action is taken on their part. The minute they try to harm someone because of their ideas, they should have the book thrown at them.

[Crysta]

So... it turns out I was wrong when I thought this wouldn't be the event to make people care about what the Confederate flag means to everyone.

Not sure how far I should read into it because there were politicians defending it as recently as Friday, but it is a good thing imo.

[Life]

I'm not a fan of SJWs mostly because they spread flat out lies about my own country (I'm looking at you, BDS).

Honestly, people need to sit down and just shut the fuck up for once instead of making everyone else's business their own. It's been happening for the past 15ish years where society feels a pathological need to "help everyone else" when they are just as (if not more) fucked up as those they are trying to help.

All in all, SJWs can go die in a hole.

[blah the Prussian]

While I STRONGLY disagree with their premise, I'm perfectly fine with letting them stew in their hatred - as long as no other criminal action is taken on their part. The minute they try to harm someone because of their ideas, they should have the book thrown at them.

They have tired to harm someone. That was what started this topic. If we are trying to stop crimes like this from happening, doesn't it make sense to stop the propaganda as well?

[eclipse]

They have tired to harm someone. That was what started this topic. If we are trying to stop crimes like this from happening, doesn't it make sense to stop the propaganda as well?

I'm not sure if the modern-day guys are the ones organizing such things, or simply inspiring others to do the same. If it's the latter, then forcing them underground would be even worse. At least if they are legal but frowned upon, it'll be a bit easier to keep track of who's not smart enough to keep their allegiance under wraps (they'd argue freedom of speech and all).

Ultimately, it'll take education to stop such crimes from happening, not outlawing thoughts.

[Klokinator]

There's also the issue I've mentioned too. When you criminalize something, it adds a taboo to it, which makes it edgy and cool. I mean, why join a boring old street gang when the real dangerous thugs are that banned KKK group! The government was so afraid of them, it had to ban all their activities!!! Whoa!!!!

Here's the other issue, just because you ban something, especially something as vague as a symbol or a name of an organization, doesn't make it go away. Ban the Confederate flag, another hateful racist flag can take its place. Ban people from joining the KKK, they join the KKKK instead. (Ku Klux Kunt Klan). Even if obvious derivatives are also banned, they can call it something else. (White Pride Negro Haters maybe? I'm shit with acronyms)

However, don't ban it, and it stays there, out in the open. I mean yeah secret activities sure, but those would be secret anyway. If you sense a threat coming, you take steps to try and predict it. Banning it accomplishes nothing and if anything can make the problem worse.

Please note that while I did say roughly the same thing about gun control, there is a big difference between a physical item you can confiscate, and an idea or set of words. Short of becoming the Thought Police (And pray to god this never happens) you can't really stop racist people from being racist. Meanwhile, at least a racist confederate flag outside their house lets you know who to shoot first and raid their goods when the zombie apocalypse begins.

[Crysta]

I'm fine with the Confederate flag being kept by citizens and them putting it on their front lawn if they want to.

Not so fine with it being in a public space that taxpayers contribute to.

Penn puts it better than I do, though this in particular is about nativity scenes and whatnot (religious stuff being placed in parks, government buildings, etc.)

[Klokinator]

Yeah, I have the same viewpoint. This is the United States of America, not the CSA. It doesn't belong on government property. But anyone who says it should be banned completely is wrong.

[blah the Prussian]

Yeah, I have the same viewpoint. This is the United States of America, not the CSA. It doesn't belong on government property. But anyone who says it should be banned completely is wrong.

Well, here's a legal precedent: the Confederate flag represents, obviously, the Confederate States of America, a nation that, in an act of treason, broke away from the US. Thus, it is a symbol for treason, and should be treated as such. Mostly playing devils advocate here, incidentally.

[I.M. Gei]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/white-supremacist-donated-to-gop-candidates.html

Republican presidential candidates were hesitant to say last week's shooting in Charleston was about racism, and over the weekend many could not give a decisive answer on whether South Carolina should stop flying the Confederate flag on the capitol grounds. Now several GOP candidates are facing even tougher questions about their campaign's ties to a white supremacist group cited in alleged shooter Dylann Roof's manifesto. The Guardian reported on Sunday that Earl Holt III, the leader of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), has donated $65,000 to Republican candidates in recent years, including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Santorum.

Roof mentioned the Missouri-based group once on his website, saying it's the first one he stumbled on in his journey toward embracing his deranged, racist worldview:

"The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?"

The Guardian highlighted many racist comments left by the user "Earl P Holt III" on the conservative site The Blaze. The user claims he's learned to use "a great many weapons" to ensure that being white doesn't "get me murdered" by minorities and calls black people "the laziest, stupidest and most criminally-inclined race in the history of the world." He also warns that black activists would "kill you, rape your entire family, and burn your house to the ground," which sounds similar to Roof's reported remark to his victims, "You rape our women."

A spokesman for Holt said the online comments were likely made by him, and in a statement posted on Saturday, Holt said the CofCC merely gave Roof "accurate" information and does not condone his actions:

"It has been brought to the attention of the Council of Conservative Citizens that Dylann Roof–the alleged perpetrator of mass murder in Charleston this week–credits the CofCC website for his knowledge of black-on-white violent crime.
This is not surprising: The CofCC is one of perhaps three websites in the world that accurately and honestly report black-on-white violent crime, and in particular, the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.
The CofCC website exists because media either “spike” such stories, or intentionally obscure the race of black offenders. Indeed, at its national convention some years ago, the Society of Professional Journalists adopted this tactic as a formal policy.
The CofCC is hardly responsible for the actions of this deranged individual merely because he gleaned accurate information from our website.

We are no more responsible for the actions of this sad young man, than the Olin Corporation was for manufacturing the ammo misused by Colin Ferguson to murder six whites on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.
The CofCC does not advocate illegal activities of any kind, and never has. I would gladly compare the honesty and law-abiding nature of our membership against that of any other group."

FEC filings reveal that since 2012, Holt has contributed $8,500 to one of Senator Ted Cruz's political action committees, $1,750 to Senator Rand Paul's RandPAC, and $1,500 to former Senator Rick Santorum. According to the New York Times, he's also donated money to Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Rob Portman, Representative Steve King, former Representative Michele Bachmann, former Representative Todd Akin, and Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign fund.

When contacted by The Guardian, Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said, "Upon review, we discovered that Mr. Holt did make a contribution. We will be immediately refunding the donation."

Santorum spokesman Matthew Beynon disavowed Holt's comments, but didn't say anything about returning the money. "Senator Santorum does not condone or respect racist or hateful comments of any kind. Period. The views the Senator campaigns on are his own and he is focused on uniting America, not dividing her," Beynon said. Paul has yet to respond to questions about the donations.

"yes he wholeheartedly digested our rhetoric and followed it to its logical conclusion but SO WHAT"

http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/06/media-interviews-with-the-cofcc/

[...]
This is dangerous. Our society’s silence about these crimes—despite enormous amounts of attention to “racially tinged” acts by whites—only increase the anger of people like Dylann Roof. This double standard *only makes acts of murderous frustration more likely*.

In his manifesto, Roof outlines other grievances felt by many whites. Again, we utterly condemn Roof’s despicable killings, but they do not detract in the slightest from the legitimacy of some of the positions he has expressed. *Ignoring legitimate grievances is dangerous*.

Edited June 23, 2015 by I.M. Gei