site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27235 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump brings up 11 possible issues in his petition for review. Included was the First Amendment Issue

G. The district court ruled that President Trump’s political speech “incited” violence, even though the words he used never advocated violence. Instead, the district court found that President Trump’s supposed intent, and the effect of his words upon certain listeners, sufficed to render his speech unprotected under the First Amendment. Did the district court err in its application of First Amendment standards to President Trump’s speech?

Later, in his opening brief:

The trial court erred in its First Amendment analysis for two reasons. First, it failed to evaluate the words President Trump actually used on January 6th. Second, it expanded the context relevant to a Brandenburg analysis beyond anything recognized in precedent.

Courts must harmonize constitutional provisions. Even if “engage” includes “incite” Section Three can easily be harmonized with First Amendment rights protecting political speech under the Brandenburg standards.

Speech cannot be punished as incitement unless it (1) “advoca[tes] the use of force or of law violation,” (2) is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (3) is “likely to incite or produce such action.” All three elements must be met: “the speaker’s intent to encourage violence (second factor) and the tendency of his statement to result in violence (third factor) are not enough to forfeit First Amendment protection unless the words used specifically advocated the use of violence….”

Thus, a court must evaluate the content, form, and context of speech.” Foremost is the objective content of the speech— where speech is protected, “its setting, or context, [can] not render it unprotected.” Intent is important, but only as an additional hurdle, not as a substitute for the required focus on the words themselves; tests focusing on a speaker’s intent or the effect on listeners—rather than the speaker’s words—are prohibited.

Despite this clear precedent, the trial court eschewed meaningful analysis of the objective meaning of President Trump’s words on January 6th. President Trump’s words were not as incendiary as language the Supreme Court has already protected as a matter of law. As a D.C. Circuit judge remarked last year, “you just print out the [President’s January 6] speech…and read the words…it doesn’t look like it would satisfy the [Brandenburg] standard.

On January 6th, President Trump called for protesting “peacefully and patriotically,” to “support our Capitol Police and law enforcement,” to “[s]tay peaceful,” and to “remain peaceful.” This patently fails to meet the first element of Brandenburg.

The trial court nonetheless relied on years of speech that long preceded President Trump’s January 6th speech. This broke radically with First Amendment jurisprudence and created a blatant double standard. While acknowledging the “prevalence of martial language in the political arena”—including “calling on supporters to ‘fight’ and ‘fight like hell,’” as Trump did—the trial court still argued that such standard political rhetoric was different for Trump because it “ignores both the significant history of Trump’s relationship with political violence and the noted escalation in Trump’s rhetoric in the lead up to, and on, January 6, 2021.” It concocted a radical new legal rule: in determining whether a defendant had the specific intent required by Brandenburg, courts may consider any speech ever uttered by the defendant, including to distinct audiences.

For this enormous expansion of the context permitted in a Brandenburg analysis, the trial court cited a single line of dicta in a Supreme Court case. That case held only that Brandenburg’s imminence requirement was not satisfied; it did not analyze specific intent and or hold that a speaker’s past speech, to distinct audiences, constituted incitement. No court has so held.

Applying this radical test, the trial court held that in determining specific intent for most speakers, we should examine the speech in the narrow context in which it was made and afford it the traditional protections—but for Trump, we should examine a curated compilation of speech going back years to decipher a hidden meaning. This runs counter to Wisconsin Right to Life’s injunction against an inquiry that leads to the “bizarre result” that what is “protected speech for one speaker” can lead to “criminal penalties for another.” Simply put, the trial court misapplied Brandenburg requiring reversal.

It's a crapshoot whether the Colorado Supreme Court rules for or against Trump on this issue, because it's a charged political question and an all-Democratic court. But it should be a 7-2 bitchslap (Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent) from SCOTUS at worst. If SCOTUS goes against Trump on this, the First Amendment is dead.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats