Why aren't hate groups banned in the U.S.?

[Horus]

Simple answer - banning them would make them more popular.

[bagelman]

If you give government the ability to designate hate groups, prepare for pro-Palestinian protestors to be locked up as anti-Semites.

[wolfsblood07]

So many normal countries (like Canada and Germany) ban hate groups. Why hasn't the U.S. banned them?

Who decides what's a 'hate group'?

The president should decide.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think if you're a group exxplicitly calling for genocide or ethnic clenasing (so extreme white nationalists, extreme black nationalists, Islamist extremists like Hizb ut-tahrir etc) you're effectively advocating crimes and are thus a criminal organisation.

The reason they are not banned is not banned fwiw, is not moronic reasons like "well, banning them will make more popular!" or idealistic Voltaire reasons or even the constitution (like the constitution has ever stopped the federal government before). It's because these organisations are useful as honeytraps to ensnare any individual ambitious enough to start advocating they go beyond useless talking shops.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

Directly and openly advocating such violence would defeat the object. The idea is to use violence, threats and harassment to discourage dissident groups whilst being able to say to them "Hey, its not us directing this violence at you, its just that you're not very popular, maybe that's your fault and you should consider giving up"

The method usually used. Hostile rhetoric aimed at the dissidents. Police given stand down orders to not interfere with anti-dissident violence and threats (whilst still being firm on any violence and harassment coming from dissidents). Afterwards statements defending the 'free speech' of the 'protestors' whilst blaming the dissidents for any violence or threats they were victims of.

If you're dealing with this problem you need to be aware of what's going on.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

What happened in Berkeley was a perfect example of the above mentioned tactic. The mayor of the town attacked the dissidents and blamed them for the violence against them

You must be logged in to read this quote.

whilst at the same time the police were given stand down orders in order to let the violence go on unimpeded

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/02/03/berkeley-mayor-uc-police-union-criticize-campus-over-plans-for-milo-yiannopolous-protest/

So what we saw in Berkeley was government violence directed at dissidents by Democratic political bosses. The fact that the City of Berkeley outsourced this violence to left wing 'activist' groups and the fact that the majority of those involved in carrying out the violence (i.e. the ones who aren't government informers) are useful idiots unaware of the nature of their role does not alter the fact that this is government political violence against dissidents.

The outsourcing of the violence in this way has two major benefits to the authorities. Firstly it gives them a form of plausible deniability in a situation where direct political repression is illegal.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it enables them to say to those they're attacking "Hey look, its not us attacking you, you're getting attacked because you're so very unpopular and its all really your fault. You should give up". If people accept the premise of this line then its much more effective as propaganda for the authorities in question to demoralise the dissidents than if they said directly "We don't like your dissident opinions so we're sending round our goon squads to attack you".

If you are in a situation where come under this kind of attack (as a California Republican) then you should remember that the first statement in the previous paragraph is a fiction whilst the latter statement describes the reality of this type of situation. Hopefully that will make you immune to the kind of deliberately demoralising propaganda that will come in the form of statement like the first statement.

[dead0man]

(like the constitution has ever stopped the federal government before)

seriously?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

(like the constitution has ever stopped the federal government before)

seriously?

Yeah, like it or not, most executive​s have treated the Constitution as some sort of interesting document at best; and they very rarely are constrained by it except as a matter of last resort.

[TJ in Oregon]

(like the constitution has ever stopped the federal government before)

seriously?

Yeah, like it or not, most executive​s have treated the Constitution as some sort of interesting document at best; and they very rarely are constrained by it except as a matter of last resort.

^Which is a great reason to be against the government banning hate groups. If said government can't be expected to follow the rules restraining its power (which it can't), then giving it the power to ban groups based on their views seems like a terrible idea.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Kinda weird that we're having this discussion considering the current President and many of the people critical to his political rise.

[pbrower2a]

Why aren't hate groups banned in the US? Because the Holocaust didn't happen here. (But what does one call the slave trade and 'Indian removal'?

[The_Doctor]

I hate to point this out but do you want to give Donald Trump the power to designate a hate group? The First Amendment exists for a reason, to protect free speech and to protect us against an extremely powerful government that would stifle us. Like the Trump government.

[Hollywood]

I have serious issues with other Americans, especially lawyers and Judges, promoting legislation that bans "hate speech" or "hate groups", because terms like "hate" (or "offensive") political speech is often vague, circumstantial, and subjective.  What is "hate"?  Does it mean "offensive"?  Does hate speech include derogatory opinions about black, brown and/or white people or just minority groups?  What makes a group hateful?  Is a group hateful because of its policy positions, opinions of leaders or members, etc.? 

Both parties like to use events of the past (WW1 and WW2) to exemplify incorrect policies.  After the Civil War, we corrected the Constitution to provide people with more inalienable rights and freedoms, unless one believes that giving an individual person his or her rights equates to taking another person's right to oppress that human being.  What black people, and Hispanic people, and LGBTQ people and Women don't understand is that taking away a right... obliterating the protections of those first amendment rights that protect bigoted SOBs... will have severe consequences, backlash, and collateral damage against the same people promoting a ban on hate speech or groups. 

[RINO Tom]

cuz muh first amendment

As someone who loves nearly everything I've encountered about your continent, it's nothing short of baffling why so many Europeans can't wrap their minds around why the First Amendment is so important.

[Hollywood]

Why aren't hate groups banned in the US? Because the Holocaust didn't happen here. (But what does one call the slave trade and 'Indian removal'?

Hate Groups are not banned in the US, because the constitutional structure of the United States disallowed government interference of 1st Amendment speech.  The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment created inalienable freedoms to all people and did not necessitate an overhaul of the document.  Concepts of Hate Speech and Groups did not exist in the late 1800s, and the Union amendment-drafters would not have voted on such limitations.  They miscalculated the confederate individuals that would use the government structures to put limitations on Civil Rights.  

Germany has a Hate Group ban, because they had an extremely poor constitutional structure that allowed the disintegration of checks and balances on power, allowing the government to interfere with freedom of speech and expression.  Article 48 of the Weimer Constitution provided Hitler unlimited power, and consequently, the Weimer Constitution was replaced by the 1949 Constitution. There are still problems with Germany's constitutional principles, but intense world scrutiny has imposed upon the German Government a careful adherence of the equal protection principles covered by the Eternity Clause.

[RINO Tom]

Why aren't hate groups banned in the US? Because the Holocaust didn't happen here. (But what does one call the slave trade and 'Indian removal'?

Hate Groups are not banned in the US, because the constitutional structure of the United States disallowed government interference of 1st Amendment speech.  The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment created inalienable freedoms to all people and did not necessitate an overhaul of the document.  Concepts of Hate Speech and Groups did not exist in the late 1800s, and the Union amendment-drafters would not have voted on such limitations.  They miscalculated the confederate individuals that would use the government structures to put limitations on Civil Rights.  

Germany has a Hate Group ban, because they had an extremely poor constitutional structure that allowed the disintegration of checks and balances on power, allowing the government to interfere with freedom of speech and expression.  Article 48 of the Weimer Constitution provided Hitler unlimited power, and consequently, the Weimer Constitution was replaced by the 1949 Constitution. There are still problems with Germany's constitutional principles, but intense world scrutiny has imposed upon the German Government a careful adherence of the equal protection principles covered by the Eternity Clause.

And the irony is insane...

[Tekken_Guy]

First of all, freedom of speech. And think people are more concerned when the groups become physically violent rather than something else.

Also, there's no agreement on what a hate group is by the two wings. Liberals tend to go after white supremacists, homophobic Christian organizations, and anti-immigration groups. Conservatives tend to go after black, Hispanic, and Muslim groups and radical feminist organizations.

[pbrower2a]

Why aren't hate groups banned in the US? Because the Holocaust didn't happen here. (But what does one call the slave trade and 'Indian removal'?

Hate Groups are not banned in the US, because the constitutional structure of the United States disallowed government interference of 1st Amendment speech.  The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment created inalienable freedoms to all people and did not necessitate an overhaul of the document.  Concepts of Hate Speech and Groups did not exist in the late 1800s, and the Union amendment-drafters would not have voted on such limitations.  They miscalculated the confederate individuals that would use the government structures to put limitations on Civil Rights.  

Germany has a Hate Group ban, because they had an extremely poor constitutional structure that allowed the disintegration of checks and balances on power, allowing the government to interfere with freedom of speech and expression.  Article 48 of the Weimer Constitution provided Hitler unlimited power, and consequently, the Weimer Constitution was replaced by the 1949 Constitution. There are still problems with Germany's constitutional principles, but intense world scrutiny has imposed upon the German Government a careful adherence of the equal protection principles covered by the Eternity Clause.

Imposed by the Allies who dreaded a resuscitation of Nazism in a culture that had been infected of it, and endorsed by German leaders who themselves recognized that Nazism was incompatible with any concept of democracy, whether liberal democracy in the Federal Republic or 'socialist' democracy in the DDR. On this the Soviets and the West could agree: that Germany (and Austria) must never have another Hitler. This also applies to countries that had large German minorities before the Second World War, including France (Alsace-Lorraine), Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the former Czechoslovakia -- and to such dascistic parties and causes as the Ustase in Croatia, the Iron Guard in Romania, the Arrow Cross in Hungary, Quisling's  Nasjonal Samlung in Norway, the National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, Rexists in Belgium, and Fascist Party of Italy. In the Far East, the political umbrella of the single-Party that ruled Japan during World War II was also outlawed.

They never will be missed.   

Had history been inverted, with a democratic Germany and a somewhat-democratic Japan defeating a KKK-dominated America that committed Holocaust-like atrocities, then America would have bans on hate groups and their visual and verbal signals.

[Associate Justice PiT]

cuz muh first amendment

As someone who loves nearly everything I've encountered about your continent, it's nothing short of baffling why so many Europeans can't wrap their minds around why the First Amendment is so important.

     Especially considering the problems that Europe has suffered at the hands of both left-wing and right-wing authoritarian regimes, I would think that they would be more wary of authoritarian policies.

[Wiz in Wis]

(like the constitution has ever stopped the federal government before)

seriously?

Yeah, like it or not, most executive​s have treated the Constitution as some sort of interesting document at best; and they very rarely are constrained by it except as a matter of last resort.

Where did you get your degree in Constitutional Law, if I may ask?