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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
With the recent arrest of Don Lemon, I think it's worth asking how society should respond to the sorts of activities he (allegedly) engaged in?
Disrupting a church service is not exactly terrorism, since there was no actual violence used. But it's not civil disobedience either -- nobody is seriously arguing that the laws against disrupting meetings are themselves unjust.
It's sort of Terrorism Lite. It's kind of like, as another poster analogized, to holding your fist a millimeter away from someone's face while chanting "I'm not touching you." The point is to (arguably) inflict as much harm as you can get away with, to grab attention, to intimidate, to provoke a response, etc. while plausibly claiming that you are non-violent.
Maybe it's my imagination, but I feel like I've seen more and more of this Terrorism Lite in recent years. Things like traffic-blocking; meeting disruption; etc.
While it's true that there are already laws on the books against these sorts of things, I think an argument can be made that there needs to be a more focused and vigorous response. By analogy, in theory blowing up a bomb in a train station is already against the law, whether or not it's in support of some political objective, but there is value in having special laws on the books against terrorism and especially against those who finance or otherwise support it.
In the same way, there could be laws which sanction people, organizations, and governments for providing material support to what I have called Terrorism Lite. (Perhaps someone can suggest a better term.)
I'm perfectly happy with Civil Right's legislation being thrown at these "protesters". It's as legitimate a use of it as others I've seen. And it almost makes me believe I still have rights.
But it isn't (and you don't). The judicial system understands that these laws are only supposed to be used against the right, so they refused to even approve charges against Lemon.
My understanding is what was rejected was an Emergency Warrant. I have no idea how often Emergency Warrants are used. Maybe an Emergency Warrant would have been approved if but for Lemon's politics/status? How would we know?
More options
Context Copy link
Well from what I understand, the feds requested arrest warrants as to 3 or 4 individuals (including Lemon) and the arrests were approved as to everyone except Lemon. This suggests that there really is some kind of weakness in the case against Lemon.
Do you happen to know what exactly the evidence against him? I've searched for it online but haven't found anything.
I expect him to claim that he was there doing journalism, and as such not a part of the group disrupting things; a 1A vs 1A battle!
The truth of that claim will probably be more important than balancing the right to worship with the right to journalist, but I expect that is the issue.
AFAIK there are relatively few "journalism"-specific 1A protections, in part because journalism is a bit nebulous around the edges. There is a bit of a tradition of police leaving journalists alone, but a "press" vest doesn't actually impart specific legal protections against, say, lawful disperse orders. If there were, we'd have to decide who qualified: "yes officer, I'm just here because I might blog about it in the next month."
Religion is also a bit nebulously defined, but a church is a pretty central example and there is a long tradition of special protections there.
I think it comes more down to whether he was engaging in activity that is objectively illegal, since an observer would presumably be less likely to actively obstruct or threaten someone. If he were simply standing there quietly it could even be argued that any requests to vacate the premises were not directed to him, insofar as he was not acting any more disruptive than any member of the congregation. It all depends on the specifics of what they can prove that he actually did, not that he was just present while other people were breaking the law.
He's on video specifically questioning church staff, being asked to leave if he's not there to worship, and then going on to 'interview' churchgoers for another nine minutes, starting minute 52 of the stream. Combined with intentionally entering the church 'when the moment is right', it's extremely implausible that did not intentionally interrupt service, and continue to do so after staff asked him to leave.
I haven't seen the video so I'll take you're word on what's in it. That being said, the SAFE Act would only seem to apply if he is doing something to threaten people or restrict egress from the building. He's certainly guilty of whatever the Minnesota equivalent of what would be Defiant Trespass in Pennsylvania, but that's a state level charge, and as far as I can tell there aren't any Federal trespass laws that don't involve Federal property or otherwise apply in very specific situations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you wait for a few days, the indictment listing the actual charges and evidence should be posted somewhere on RECAP.
More options
Context Copy link
His livestream?!
What are we even doing man...
What exactly did he do?
Edit: By the way, I think it's pretty likely that he helped plan and organize the disruption and/or actively participated. I'm just wondering what the evidence is.
The entire livestream is still up on his personal YouTube channel (the action is all in the first hour or so). He travels with the group from the staging area to the church. It is clear from how he covers the lead-up that he is in on the plot.
I'm not sure how they'll get him specifically on the FACE Act charges, but he does seem to be part of the conspiracy, and that's what they need for the KKK Act charges.
I donno. Maybe how prostitution isn't illegal if you film it, because it's now pornography, maybe Don Lemon is going with some "It's not a civil rights violation if you film it, then it's news!" defense. Although, first, that seems questionable given how much he participates and second, the people who filmed the Arbery murder are still serving life sentences just for being there, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link