Anonymous #1 25w

And to who

8

Anonymous #1 25w

Liquidation if the assets and wealth of southern elites with direct financial ties to the unpunished slaver-planter class along with a general redistribution of wealth by abolishing billionaires and oligarchs, who operate on the same ideology that the slavers did. Paid to American descendants of slavery. Not just direct payments either but restitution for entire communities and regions. Investments in infrastructure, recreation, job access, education, etc. this would help everyone

-2

Anonymous stoner22 25w

Yep this is insane

5

Anonymous #3 25w

How?

1

Anonymous stoner22 25w

Why should we be held guilty for the crimes of our forefathers? Courts are not legally allowed to do that

4

Anonymous #4 25w

You mean the crimes they actively reps the benefits of and continue in subtler ways?

-1

Anonymous stoner22 25w

The US Constitution forbids corruption of blood when prosecuting traitors. Courts have taken this to mean that the constitution prevents corruption of blood in any criminal case. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional, in violation of due process, and would set a dangerous legal precedent for the punishment of innocent descendants.

4

Anonymous #4 25w

they should be, if your family’s success is built on the backs of others’ suffering, you shouldn’t be entitled to that success

4

Anonymous #4 25w

Fair, their wealth can still be taxed and or seized by other means and new laws etc. the 1% and their assets should be redistributed to eradicate poverty

1

Anonymous stoner22 25w

Which by extension would largely help black people. And we can and should still do reparations.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Sorry for the spam but I was thinking, nothing I said particularly calls out bloodlines- but rather corruption of wealth. Just a thought.

1

Anonymous stoner22 25w

people are unable to engage with the idea that reparations would be the best course of action for repairing historical wrongs, if the method you suggested isn’t constitutional, perhaps there’s another?

6

Anonymous #5 25w

Agreed. Reparations is a direct material difference which in a country whose poverty demographics is largely black Americans would have ripple effects in positive ways.

1

Anonymous #5 25w

If you’ve got a problem with it go dispute due process and Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution in the Supreme Court. As of now reparations are both highly unpopular and do not have solid legal background, with 70% of US adults opposing. So good luck with that

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Well ofc the majority of Americans oppose it, the majority of Americans, especially white Americans, materially benefitted and still materially benefit from the consequences of chattel slavery today

-1

Anonymous #5 25w

As do a majority of American Hispanic, Asian, all age groups, all education levels, and all income levels. 91% of republicans oppose and 50% of democrats do the same, according to PEW. Does that help you understand how unpopular the idea is?

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Yes, bc the people that directly benefit from oppression that continues to exist in this country will be forced to give up of some of their privilege

-1

Anonymous #5 25w

So hispanics, Asian Americans, and low income groups will be giving up their privilege too? Because it seems to me they’d be all for reparations and the precedents they’d set. Yet the data tells a different story.

0

Anonymous #4 25w

I mean, I believe most of the reparations should be paid by the direct descendants of slaveowners as long as it doesn’t threaten their ability to pay for food, water, and shelter, it’s likely not constitutional though However, I do think reparations can be created by taxing the wealthy and spending money in poor, BIPOC communities exclusively and that that would likely not be as unconstitutional

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Regarding the first suggestion, you’re correct that it likely wouldn’t be constitutional, seeing as it veers dangerously close to inherited liability. The second proposal would also likely violate the equal protection clause by focusing on race based redistribution.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Yeah, but I’m not a big fan of the constitution anyways, I think it’s outdated and would be more than in favor of a complete constitutional convention to change some of the worst parts of it like weakening the 1st Amendment’s protection of hate speech and weakening the 2nd Amendment to allow more gun restrictions

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Just to express my general opinion on the matter - I believe that reparations for slavery are both a broadly unpopular and dangerous idea that, if implemented, would suggest a precedent normalizing collective, multigenerational (ancestry-based) liability that stands in stark contrast to American legal and societal views of the responsibility of the individual for their actions. Once we accept this idea, it thus becomes difficult to determine where historical responsibility ends.

0

Anonymous #5 25w

Weakening the first ammunition is insane, genuinely insane

4

Anonymous #1 25w

Amendment* pardon the iOS keyboard malfunction

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Luckily the clauses and amendments in question are outside of the two you draw issue with, falling under the umbrella of the 5th amendment (due process), 14th amendment (Equal Protection) and Article 3 (Corruption of Blood).

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Yeah, I dislike how individualized we have come to see human experience here in America. So many people here don’t even believe in systemic racism. I can understand why you would dislike it, but I do think if your ancestors held slaves, and you are able to pay a fee or fine without being unable to provide for yourself, then that is the best solution to address the historical inequities created by their ancestors

1

Anonymous #1 25w

The fact that hate speech is protected in this country is a massive mistake imo, I wish we had free speech laws more similar to Europe’s that made hate speech punishable by jail time

1

Anonymous #4 25w

The Constitution didn’t prevent Black people from being intentionally structurally disadvantaged but prevents that mistake from being remedied in any meaningful way, it directly limits the pursuit of equal rights and opportunity in this land imo

1

Anonymous #5 25w

On a slightly offbeat note, that’s the whole point of the amendment system. We also generally don’t need a whole re-write. The 1st amendment makes provisions for violent, inciting speech under Brandenburg V Ohio. The 2nd amendment also allows the government to make legal provisions for the ownership of weapons.

1

Anonymous #5 25w

I respect your drive to do what you morally believe to be right. However, based on our conversation, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the specific matter of reparations. You good with that?

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Christians are stupid. White people are incompetent You genuinely think those two sentences should be illegal, and deserve jail time?

1

Anonymous #4 25w

A lot of it is that I philosophically disagree with Stewart Mill and a lot of the political theory that inspired the Founding Fathers in the first place, it is idealist rather than realistic though to expect better I think provision for violence is a great exception, much better than blanket free speech, but I like the EU’s “public incitement to violence OR HATRED” aspect

1

Anonymous #5 25w

I agree that hate speech is vile. However, protecting free expression sadly means protecting offensive speech as well. Once the government is given the power to restrict speech based on what those in power consider hateful or unacceptable, that authority can easily expand beyond its original limits. The protection of offensive speech is less about endorsing it and more about keeping the government from becoming the ultimate judge of acceptable opinion.

1

Anonymous #1 25w

No, I don’t think it should apply to rude statements made in private, but I think it should be illegal to publicly incite violence or hate against an identifiable people based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or citizenship status I think the judicial standard should be if the statements threaten public order or advocate harm for the people publicly

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Brandenburg V Ohio already accounts for this judicial standard

1

Anonymous #4 25w

I trust a judicial system to handle public opinion. Otherwise, a judicial system is seemingly purposeless in terms of representing the people. If it can handle public opinion surrounding things like abortion, murder, and rape, it can definitely handle free speech controversies.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

No it does not, it’s for “imminent lawless action,” it only focuses on the threat of illegal acts or violence

1

Anonymous #5 25w

Those were both examples of hate speech btw, in this example a form of communication that demeans a group based on an inherent characteristic Speech used to incite imminent lawless action towards a person isn’t something that is currently legal “true threats”

0

Anonymous #5 25w

The disagreement here isn’t whether courts can make rulings, it’s about if the government should have the power to determine which opinions are harmful enough to be punished. I’m worried that, under stricter free speech laws, the government would gain the authority to dictate speech boundaries based on who has power. For example, Trump and his courts could gain the authority to rule inflammatory comments about the Republican Party as illegal. Is that something you want to risk?

1

Anonymous #5 25w

My bad you’re right. It does cover some of what you said but not the whole thing.

1

Anonymous #1 25w

Those would not qualify as hate speech as I defined it pretty typically unless used to arouse public anger or encourage some sort of illegal act.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

Yes, but that’s because the executive branch was made too powerful over the course of centuries culminating in our constitutional crisis currently. I do think if our system wasn’t so incredibly corrupt that it likely never would’ve gotten this far. A competent judicial branch would’ve found a way to prevent Trump from being eligible to run after inciting a coup.

1

Anonymous #5 25w

But that’s partially my point. Constitutional protections aren’t designed only for ideal governments. They exist specifically because political systems are imperfect and can be abused. If speech protections only work under “competent” governments then they’re not very good protections at all. Like I’ve been saying, my concern is that granting the state broader authority over speech inevitably allows those in power to shape those standards unfairly to their advantage.

6

Anonymous #4 25w

Okay, I’ll grant you that point. It speech protections only work under “competent governments” then they’re not very good protections at all. Couldn’t any law break down due to poor governance? I really don’t get your point.

1

Anonymous #5 25w

My point is that the freedoms protected by the First Amendment exist to limit government authority over expression regardless of the competency of the current administration. Weakening these protections by granting the government broader power to regulate speech creates the risk of future administrations manipulating speech standards for ideological advantage, forcing us to rely on governmental competency and goodwill as the primary arbiters of what we are permitted to express.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

As such, my concerns center on ensuring that freedom of expression remains protected under imperfect governments. This is exactly the purpose of the First Amendment and the reason why it allows such freedom of expression, even if that expression is sometimes vile.

1

Anonymous #4 25w

The 1st Amendment is now corporately-controlled and weaponized to protect dark money in politics (look at the Citizens United ruling) and to strike down labor regulations as violations of free expression. Free speech as the 1st Amendment is written directly conflicts with the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection Hate speech and systemic discrimination causes tangible harm

1

Anonymous #5 25w

I believe that hate speech is an unfortunate byproduct of the freedom of expression we as humans deserve and should have protected from dangerous government influence. You seem to view the harm that such speech might cause as reason to restrict that freedom, as to help ensure greater social justice. At this point, it seems our disagreement is purely philosophical and we’ll just have to disagree on the matter.

1