Value Democracy and Non-Profit Status (State Speaks Symposium): Response to Horwitz and Calabresi

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Regarding liberal democracy and what might be meant by a “reasonable pluralism” with regard to religious (and non-religious?) worldviews, I have found the work of Gerald Gaus quite helpful. See, for example, from his academic homepage in the Philosophy Dept. at the University of Arizona, these two papers (one co-authored):

    More broadly (and deeply!) his book is important too: The Order of Public Reason…(2011).

  2. AYY says:

    “As they point out, the rest of the world outside of the United States bans hate speech for a reason. We are not immune to the risks those laws aim to combat. If such views, such as anti-immigrant hostility, were to win out, this would harm liberal democracy.”

    So there are no reasonable arguments for restricting immigrations?
    As far as the reasons for criminalizing “hate speech”, you might want to consider this:

    or this about the verdict against Elisabeth Wolf for insulting Mohammed:

    or this about the verdict against Google in Italy:

    “I am disquieted by reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center and other researchers that hate groups are on the rise both in the U.S. and Europe.”

    Some have argued that SPLC brands a group a hate group simply because they disagree with SPLC’s agenda, and that the purpose behind the reports you mention is to get you to write them a check.
    Here’s a compilation of some articles that have been critical of SPLC’s agenda.

    Here’s an excerpt:
    “In 2001 JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in the Nation: “Why the [SPLC] continues to keep ‘Poverty’ (or even ‘Law’) in its name can be ascribed only to nostalgia or a cynical understanding of the marketing possibilities in class guilt.” . . .
    “What has infuriated the SPLC’s liberal critics is their suspicion that Morris Dees has used the SPLC primarily as a fundraising machine fueled by his direct-mail talents that generates a nice living for himself (the SPLC’s 2010 tax filing lists a compensation package of $345,000 for him as the organization’s chief trial counsel and highest-paid employee) and a handful of other high ranking SPLC officials plus luxurious offices and perks, but that does relatively little in the way of providing the legal services to poor people that its name implies.

    CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy), an independent organization that monitors and rates leading nonprofits for their fundraising efficiency, has consistently given the SPLC its lowest grade of “F” (i.e., “poor”) for its stockpiling of assets far beyond what CharityWatch deems a reasonable reserve (three years’ worth of operating expenses) to tide it over during donation-lean years.”

  3. Brett Bellmore says:

    The SPLC are a bit of a joke these days. I recall that, at one time their online version of their “Hatewatch” database included a link to a google search of dried bean dealers, apparently on the theory that they were all survivalists, and survivalists were right wing haters, and likely racists.

    The SPLC long ago gave up on distinguishing between being a racist hate group, and simply disagreeing with them. I’m not sure whether it’s a tactic, or they simply can’t see any difference. Either way they’re a joke.