Tax hate groups

As a practical matter, that would not survive a constitutional challenge either on Free Speech, Due Process, or Equal Protection grounds.

Remember the conversation we had about what to do with the hateful? I recommended an approach based on extreme social pressure, criticism, ostracism, and non-association. That approach would be much more devastating and effective, as well as being within the law.

 

I have to agree with Pret. You know what would happen if we taxed the WBC? Nothing. Well, let me rephrase that - shit would hit the fan, they'd create a huge scene, picket more funerals, and they'd find their money (being a bigot doesn't mean you're poor!)

Then, they'd probably form a group saying that organizations like the ASPCA are hate groups or something crazy like that (and they'd probably get away with it!)

It's sad, isn't it? It'd be so nice to just tax the crap out of them...but it won't work.

 

Can't you just change your rules to make hate speech illegal, like every other civilised country in the world.

 

You don't mess with Americans and their right to free speech, no matter how vile it is. Not even kidding - it's sad!

 

No, but I look forward to a time when our society will become committed and organized enough that will be possible to kill these people by entirely legal means, probably by massive and distributed refusal to engage in economic trade with participants in hate groups (especially in food, housing, utilities, and medical).

As a practical matter, I think we can certainly see reformation, however forced, in people after significant social and economic pressure is brought to bear against people because of their beliefs.

 

I am against hate speech in every form, however, we attempt to get rid of hate speech, and they'll want to count mocking the government as hate speech. Then stating your opinion will be hate speech, until anything that does not conform to the government's will is hate speech.

This has happened in the GOP already, so it happening nationwide isn't an insane thought. We cannot restrict the first amendment in anyway, no matter what the cost.

 

I'm quite firmly in the Libertarian camp on the matter of hate speech. There are ways to deal with it without involving any branch of the government.

 

Libertarian opinion here. Fudging the tax laws is political weaseling that would only turn corrupt in about 5 minutes. Not to mention that indirect censorship is still censorship. Public shaming is the way to go.

 

When I was saying "like every other civilised country" I wasn't be hyperbolic - most western countries other than the US have made hate speech illegal, we are much better off for it, and have had none of the problems you've listed.

Also, you can amend your amendments . That's what they were doing in the first place. Treating them as an infallible doctrine is silly (this isn't entirely directed at what you've said, I've just seen a lot of people treating your amendments/constitution as something that absolutely cannot be changed in any circumstance, which is very strange).

 

Americans have the strange ethic that you have to wait for the enemy actually to burst through the castle walls before you can fight back.

 

(just another gay libertarian. have we learnt a new way to bred or something?) id suspect most gay hate groups end up empowering the gay rights movement.not to mention the fact that history has been pretty unfavorable to nations that dont let individuals speak freely.

 

I'd remove all charitable tax exemptions. We all get to decide how to spend our money after it goes through the tax system. Why should some of that not be taxed? We decide through the democratic process how to spend taxable money. Churches or any other religious body should be treated as individual discretionary spending, and be fully taxed thereafter.

 

But the reason that perjury is not protected speech is that it abuses the judicial process, and the judicial process is more fundamental to rights protection.

 

Taxing specific groups is against freedom of speech bro, understand the consitution better. The government is silencing you by taking all your money and not your neighbors...

 

What you're suggesting is unconstitutional and will just make these hate groups look like victims and get them more attention. It just isn't the best course of action to take in America.

Also, there are limitations to the freedom of speech. For starters, there are limitations in regards to false advertising, libel, slander, obscenity (Miller v. California and Smith v. California), child pornography (New York. v. Ferber), fighting words (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire), threats, and copyrighted material (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises). There are more exemptions and the previous list was not meant to be exhaustive.

We have amended our amendments in the past (example 21st amendment) but I honestly believe that America would cease to be a country before Americans allow any more restrictions on free speech. Also, (as I'm sure you're aware) it is incredibly difficult to get an amendment added to the Constitution.

Also, have you heard of the cases Virginia v. Black (2003) or Snyder v. Phelps (2011)? Snyder v. Phelps should show you how likely banning hate speech would fly in the USA

 

The idea of banning someone from speaking is, quite frankly, repulsive.

 

Why is it sad? It is literally one of the greatest things to come out of America. Are you kiddng me?