264
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/politics@lemmy.world

Update (10/16/23): The Illinois man who fatally stabbed a 6-year-old Palestinian American boy had reportedly been worried about the “day of jihad” and had “been listening to conservative talk radio about the Israel-Hamas war and became increasingly concerned about his Muslim tenants.”

Right-wing media spent days fearmongering about potential mass violence happening on Friday after a former Hamas political leader was reportedly mistranslated as advocating for a “day of jihad.” Despite a lack of evidence of a related threat to the United States, some called for increased surveillance and others gave advice on how to best avoid an attack.

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Zippit@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

The US really should think about implementing a law about hate speech, inciting violence against others, based on race, gender, religion, etc ...

Just copy paste from the law in Belgium, the UK or Germany. That way you can round up these people and maybe in a decade have a decent society again.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

We have a history of shitty censorship going back to the colonial era. We have good reason to not put the power to criminalize viewpoints in the hands of government.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

You don't criminalize the speech, you add accountability for the outcomes.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Then you've gotta be patient and wait for there to be some outcomes, instead of clamoring for the speech to be shut down in advance.

We call that distinction "prior restraint". In US law, government doesn't get to silence speech, but can still prosecute harms that happen after the speech.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago

The outcomes keep happening and nobody is penalized.

[-] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Every democracy that I can think of has laws against hate speech, including all of the ones that score higher on the freedom index than the US. Outlawing hate speech increases freedom. All of the questions about who gets to define what constitutes hate speech and where to draw the line have already been answered. Different countries have arrived at different answers, but the US clinging to the right to continuously blast hate and weaponize far-right ideologies into terrorist attacks in the name of “liberty” is idiotic. A Nazi group marching down Main Street chanting about how they want to kill the Jews doesn’t make society more free. It terrorizes society. It makes it less free.

And in any case the US regulates the crap out of speech. Theres no lack of regulation as to what constitutes legal and illegal speech. There’s laws against libel and slander. Many on the far right - including Donald Trump have both taken very liberal advantage of those laws and have called for them to be made stronger. They are the ones calling the press the enemy of the people. We also have laws against making false statements, against deceptive advertising, against counterfeiting, against passing bad checks. We have laws against verbal assault. We have laws against making terroristic threats. We pass those laws because speech can and does produce harm. If you falsely and maliciously accuse someone of rape, if you write a bad check and defraud someone out of their car, if you call in a bomb threat, you are causing harm with speech.

250-odd years ago, they were still figuring that shit out. We’ve had a couple of centuries since then to better understand democracy and political dynamics.

Somehow, it’s only hate speech that people want to hold up as the linchpin of liberty. Hate speech decreases freedom because it increases fear and because it empowers the enemies of freedom. It is the paradox of tolerance. No country is perfect and everyone is dealing with a bizarrely well funded and strangely internationalist far right, but at least hate speech laws offer the opportunity for at least some level of control.

We put the power in the hands of the government to criminalize, well, basically everything we consider criminal, including speech.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

So we shouldn't do anything because something bad might happen? That's like claiming the 8th amendment could lead to lawlessness because we will treat criminals too nice

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah, you shouldn't hand the current administration the power to silence speech, because the next administration might use that power against you. That seems like a pretty damn good precaution in a multicultural society.

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The administration doesn't decide what is or is not abhorrent speech.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's who runs the enforcement, though.

[-] RojoSanIchiban@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think you grasp the difference between "the law" and "law enforcement."

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well, now you’re building a history of dumb fucks being manipulated in to violence by lying fucks and it’s seeping across the border in to my country.

So smarten the fuck up and do something about it.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago

Incitement to violence isn't a viewpoint.

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

As with a lot of other stuff, this sounds nice in theory, but the implementation is that instead of putting the regulation of speech, healthcare, taxes, whatever else on shittily elected officials, the US instead puts it in the hands of completely unelected corporations.

Democratic oversight is very flawed and not perfect by far, but it's way better than corporate oversight which is authoritarian by its very nature.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Awww but sedition! And espionage!

[-] nmhforlife@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

but muh free speech

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Out of curiosity, can you sum up the key points of those?

[-] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

It's so odd how there is always some sort of caravan of immigrants approaching our borders or "day of jihad” that suddenly disappear the Wednesday after an election.

Dude, the real issue is shariah law in America as I hear these ladies talking at the deli counter in my local BJs because they don't know the difference from Shariah Law made by Christians fanatics or followers of the Quran

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Shakira law says your hips should only tell truth

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

It did come….on Jan 6th 2021

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

The irony here of course is that the fundamentalist christians have 0 issue with carrying out a "jihad" of their own against people of other religions, lgbtq, and athiests. I mean if you are so afraid of a 6 year old American citizen of another ethnicity hurting you but have no fear or problem taking his parents' money you are a special kind of fucking coward and degenerate. But then again those conservative news agencies know everything that their viewers dont have the mental horsepower to understand, or do but will never investigate on their own or think for themselves makes them afraid of their own shadows.

[-] PwnTra1n@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

why are they so worried when theres so many good guys with guns

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

I doubt they believe in "good guys with guns" any more than the "day of jihad". They're just catch phrases that make them money.

[-] shectabeni@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Oh no don't get that misconstrued many really do believe in the good guy with a gun fantasy and that one day they will have to use it to defend themselves or their family from certain doom.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, random gun owners probably believe it, the same way many of them also believe "climate change isn't real".

But do the politicians? I'm not sure if they've even bothered to consider if it's true or not.

It's profitable to a lobby group that in turn "donates" $16 million a year and it creates a single-issue voting bloc that will tolerate literally anything -- including things they claim their guns are to prevent -- as long as you don't take away their hero fantasies.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Even if there was a "day of jihad" did he really think it would to be the first graders doing it?

He knew anyone older could kick his ass.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 18 points 1 year ago

"Despite a lack of evidence" makes it sound like an oversight. It's pretty clearly a case of malicious assholes just making shit up to serve their political ends.

[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

is it 2001 again?

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago

Hold up. You've already lost. They don't need evidence of anything. Their job is to manipulate pre-existing fear. If people merely perceive danger and that their safety is compromised, some of them will help totalitarianism take root.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Can we shut down the Republican Party now? Please? For the safety of America?

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the call is coming from inside the house

Fear, hate, and grift. It's all they know.

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

So concerned about terrorists that he became one.

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yeah I'm more worried about the altrightaliban thanks

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Jihad means many things, including inner struggle. It's actually pretty likely that the day of Jihad (if there were any earnest calls for Jihad in the first place) was probably a day of mourning that already happened.

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
264 points (94.9% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3859 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS