Is everyone in America so ignorant that they don't know what happens when informal social standards become justifications for political suppression based on who the "public" and not the law deems to be "clearly bad" and "objectively horrible" people? You get lynchings and pogroms. You get informal show trials and massacres. You carve the stick that the next batch of self-righteous authoritarians stick up their ass to justify being inhuman, indecent, monsters.
I can already hear the response forming: "But we know that these people exist, are evil, and are harming people now! We have evidence!"
Yeah. That's what they always say.
I could list every group targeted throughout by self-righteous authoritarians through just Western history--Christians, Jews, Manicheans, heretics, lepers, Catholics, Protestants, witches, blacks, anarchists, communists, thugs, Muslims--and always find a justification that began with some variant of "But we have evidence that they were Clearly Bad People!"
All those other Devils were ridiculous, made-up nonsense. But not yours. Your Devil is real.
I have always suspected it has to do with how long we’ve maintained exorbitant privilege. We simply do not look outward, not nearly enough. Here we are marching about the racist police practices of our local cops while we routinely drone bomb innocents and starve children to death with not even a whimper from the same protesters. We fail to see how our treatment of other nations comes back to haunt us as our soldiers and companies bring the horrors of foreign wars back ro our local communities. Americans are so tired and overwhelmed with deceptive media that tells them nothing, that they can’t be bothered to learn the history and the media literacy to understand the division that separates the theater of the moving image from the reality of actual real life.
You take my position and move it forward ten slots toward authoritarianism, without any evidence or defense of your position.
You say that "as soon as the public has a collective moral standard to which they hold the community, you get lynchings". What the fuck? So, we should not have any collective moral standard? We should not have some shared sense of what is right and wrong?
My line, the line that keeps your nightmare from occurring, is very clear: We can have our shared sense of right and wrong, and yes, even shun or be angry at those who don't fit that standard - but those people are defended by the law, and the law grants equal protection to all. Vigilante justice against people is not permitted under the law, and violators will be prosecuted.
Before you tear up my analysis, please give an "affirmative" - that is, give a vision of society and government that fits your worldview without putting it in terms of what I have written.
Articles in particular:
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion (emphasis mine), national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
29. (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Whether this dialogue can progress further depends on whether we can agree that, despite having no official jurisdiction, a social media mob attacking an individual constitutes being charged with a criminal and penal offense worthy of legal protections as illuminated by the above. If you believe that it not being formal prosecution that such protections don't extend to the accused, then there's no point in progressing further and I reiterate my original post.
---
Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs?
I want to be very clear that formal consideration of the UDHR by established authorities is not my contention. If you wanted solely an affirmative vision of an ideal society, then the UDHR is it.
> Your definition of "mob", "attack" both would need examples. In a real world analogy: If someone on my street waves a Nazi flag and says God hates Fags, and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of his beliefs - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for their beliefs?
I'm going to elide some details from your hypothetical.
"If someone on my street [...] and [...], and our entire community were to shun him, refuse to interact with him, or at times, warn others of [...] - do you believe that is a violation of his fundamental human rights? That no person can be shunned or disliked for [...]?"
If the elided details merely included his race for example, would you consider that a violation of his fundamental human rights? If the elided details included his colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, at what point does that become a violation of fundamental human rights? To me, the question boils down to this: is redlining a desirable and/or legal practice if the target is a law-abiding citizen in good standing, despite all other possible non-essential attributes?
From my perspective, the homophobic Nazi has done nothing unlawful or contrary to the UDHR, if we can agree that imminent harm is the baseline for where speech can infringe upon others' liberty. If we disagree that imminent harm is the baseline for acceptable speech, then we need to figure out the exact location of that disjuncture to continue.
As a further point, censorship, shunning, or suppression do not resolve the underlying processes that led to the emergence of the supposed undesirable element in the first place. If this element is a Nazi, it does not address why this person identifies as a Nazi, how he came to be radicalized as a Nazi, and what cultural or societal forces led to him falling through the cracks of the social contract to begin with. Similarly with racists, homophobes, antisemites, misogynists, and all other self-righteous authoritarians of whatever political identity.
Censorship, shunning, and suppression in fact lead to the opposite--it ignores their provenance, lets them grow in the dark, and tempers their own narratives of persecution and conspiracy. If the goal is a harmonious society predicated upon love, or at the very least brotherhood, this is not reached by excommunicating people from the very possibility of de-radicalization, de-militarization, and rapprochement.
To quote the Buddha:
"Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth."
The whole point to a court system is to remove prejudice of any form from the beginning. It's still run by humans, so it still nuttier than a squirrel turd, but at least there is an attempt. That's why when someone has multiple charges against them, they are not immediately guilty of all when they are guilty of one. You can't willy nilly say someone is guilty of everything due to one infraction.
But your backwards comment is the actual OPENING of the floodgates of hate, not the closing. The moment you decide to systematically silence people due to your will instead of through due process, you set up an elitist, rigged system. That's kind of the thing most people are trying to stop.