Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

[osamanobama]

sapphi_snake said:

badgenome said:

It should be pretty obvious why slander and so-called fighting words (threats, incitement of violence, etc.) are illegal. Obscenity is a pretty vague concept, but it basically boils down to protecting the virgin eyes and ears of children. If it can be successfully argued that something has serious artistic merit (which is seemingly pretty much anything these days), someone can usually beat an obscenity charge, but the very concept almost seems designed to chill speech.

I think the same can be said for hate speech. Even if hate speech laws are drafted with the very best of intentions, they are incredibly susceptible to abuse. Look at Canada's creepily Orwellian Human Rights Commission, before which a columnist named Mark Steyn was hauled to answer for... writing unflattering things about Muslims, basically. The thing to which they took greatest offense turned out to have been some line about how Muslims are "breeding like mosquitoes" in European countries, but that was a direct quote from a Norwegian imam, Mullah Krekar. So Steyn skated, but the whole thing sort of puts all Canadians on notice: careful what you say about Muslims. Even perfectly moderate, politically disengaged Canadians are bound to resent the fact that there is essentially a double standard regarding what you can say about, say, the average white Protestant Canadian and what you can say about Muslims. So the very laws that are meant to help bring people together only serve to drive a bigger wedge between them and otherize Canadian Muslims more than all the hate speech in the world ever could.

Obscenity is quite ambiguous these days. Obscenety laws aren't really meant to restrict free speech, as much as they are meant to promote conservative (chirsitan) sexual mores. For example, in Romania 2 decades ago 2 men kissing, or even holding hands in public was considered an "obscenity" and could get the arrested.

As for the second paragraph, you have to understand that hate speech laws aren't designed to "bring people together", they're designed to protect high risk groups, such as minority groups, or groups that have been historically abused by society (like women). White protestants don't qualify, because they're the majority (and also the "ruling class"). Realistically, the only thing that you can do to them is offend them, but since they're the majority they're not likely to experience any persecution/violence from society, because... they make up most of society.

As for the example provided, I'd havre to actually read his article to form a proper opinion, but if my hunch is right, it was probably one of those fear-mongering rhetorics meant to demonize muslims and present them as evil "invaders" (such a rhetoric is quite common amongst European right-wingers). I also have a hunch that ironically, the reporter himself probably misquoted the imam to present "proof". If this is the case, then it's downright hate speech, and should be banned (of course, this is just a hunch, I'd still have to read the actual article).

for the bolded. no (at least here) thats not what hate speech laws are supposed to do. that in itself is racism/sexism. targeting a specific group to promote/protect, distinguishing, having them be different, and not protecting another group is racism. its not to protect minorities and not majorities. its for everyone. liberals love classifing people, and putting them into groups, segregating them in a way, all in the name of doing the opposite.

for your last paragraph, thats absolute bollucks, not only is what he did not hate speech in any way (though by your standards it is because anything against your views= hate speech, anything against islam= hate speech, anything hatefull to Christians= perfectly reasonable speech). luckily in america you can say negative things about people and its not hate speech, used to be in Canada too, though you can still say anything you want about Christians, just not other groups like muslim (if not because of the government then because of fear of being beheaded by terrorists, like publishing a picture of mohamed)

edit: for your first paragraph.

thats obscene to me, and absolutely disgusts me. its offensive to me. but guess what just because im against it, and it offends, doesnt mean its illegal, thankfully