Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Portland Wants to Ban Hate Groups, Has No Idea How To Define ‘Hate Group’

What constitutes a hate group isn’t objective or easily defined, and Portland’s resolution makes no attempt to clarify.

|||Erin Alexis Randolph/Dreamstime.comErin Alexis Randolph/Dreamstime.comThe city government of Portland, Oregon, last week proposed a resolution that "condemns white supremacist and alt-right hate groups." How the city plans to enact the condemnation was not addressed during the February 8 meeting, the resolution not yet more than an appeal for Portlanders to take ownership of their historic discrimination and hate and to pledge to do better.

"We've heard this resolution is mostly symbolic, we've heard this resolution will solve nothing," said Mayor Ted Wheeler, continuing a do-something-ism that, last November, saw his emergency ordinance to restrict potentially violent public protests voted down.

"I have concerns about the constitutionality of the protest ordinance," Commissioner Nick Fish said at that time.

"Arguing about the restrictions in court, when they may not even help much on the ground, is not a wise use of taxpayers' money," said Commissioner Amanda Fritz.

The city council was apparently more comfortable with the current call to action, its five members collectively writing the resolution: a list of seventeen "Whereas…" statements that "condemns hate groups" that fails to state how these groups will be identified (or not). The resolution does, however, contain a plan to educate "all City staff on the history and impact of white supremacy, and how to identify white supremacy."

There is no getting around Oregon's track record of racial atrocities: entering the Union as a whites-only state; redlining that displaced African-American communities and put them directly in harm's way. In 1988, skinheads beat Ethiopian immigrant Mulugeta Seraw to death with a baseball bat. And in 2017, Rick Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche came to the defense of two young women on a light-rail train that were being barraged with anti-Muslim sentiments by self-described white nationalist Jeremy Joseph Christian. Christian stabbed the two men to death as horrified commuters watched.

All reasons to give a resolution like this actual teeth, and processes by which to achieve success. Instead, commissioners used the 90-minute session at City Hall to wrestle with regret and restriction.

"I am not proud of many of the things my ancestors did, being from England," said Fritz. "The colonization, the slavery, the invasion of this country, the annihilation of the Native American people, I am not proud of any of those, and I'm sorry for all of it, and I'm sorry for what's happened in Portland over the last two hundred years."

Apparently losing his concern for constitutionality, Fish mentioned that, earlier in the day, he had urged a newspaper to take down a comment about a new city employee that Fish perceived to "attack her race and sexuality."

"What does it mean for our community to come to grips with its shared discriminatory history?" asked Wheeler, who continued to have no answer beyond the resolution's pledge to "not tolerate hate in any form." The theme of collective guilt was continued by most who testified in support of the resolution.

"Racism comes in many forms," said Wadji Said, of the Muslim Educational Trust. "Sometimes it's subtle and private, and sometimes it's public and overt, and sometimes it's violent and sometimes it's harmless. It's something that I think we are all guilty of and we have to make sure that we deal with our own personal racism in the right way."

"White supremacy isn't solely embodied in hate groups," said Nicole Grant, Senior Policy Advisor to Mayor Wheeler. "It is woven into the fabric of Portland, Oregon, past and present. It is not an abstraction. It feeds on itself and affects us all daily."

Zeroing in on the haziness of the resolution, Maria Garcia of the New Portlanders Policy Commission said, "I like the idea of having a resolution against white supremacy and alt-right hate groups, but it does not make me feel any safer."

Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, was among the last to testify. It had specifically been Patriot Prayer, a Christian group that self-describes as "using the power of love and prayer to fight the corruption both in the government and citizen levels" but which opponents have labeled far-right, that Wheeler had wanted to keep from protesting in Portland. This, after several rallies against counter-protesters and Antifa turned violent.

Gibson did not appear combative today. "Looking at this resolution, the word 'hate' is in it a lot," he said. "It's about what you guys are against and denounce, but I think you have to have a solution, and I do believe the solution is love." Gibson then read a passage on love from Corinthians, and told the commission he appreciated what they were trying to do.

Wheeler did not thank Gibson for his testimony, as he had all the others. After Portlander Robert West asked, "Who's going to determine who these [hate] groups are?" Wheeler wanted it noted, "This last testimony does not reflect anything in the resolution."

Commissioner Chloe Eudaly went further. "I want to thank everyone, or almost everyone, who showed up to testify today."

Wheeler and Eudaly appeared to dishonor the pledge of inclusion even before council members voted unanimously to pass the resolution.

Photo Credit: Erin Alexis Randolph/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Portland is one of the most uniformly and notoriously Progressive cities in America. The media constantly informs me that "hate groups" are creatures of the right. So, how is it that Portland could have such a problem that it feels the need to ban such groups?

  • some guy||

    Much of politics is just saying that you're going to do something that sounds superficially good to your constituents, then depending on them to not think too hard about it.

  • Rich||

    Exactly. Let's move *forward*.

  • Quixote||

    The best way to move forward is to recognize that this article is based on faulty premises. Hate groups are groups that engage in hate speech; and it is no more difficult to distinguish between appropriately civil speech and illegal hate speech, than it is to define the line that separates criminal "parody" from acceptable criticism. See the documentation of America's leading criminal "satire" case at:

    https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • tommyguns2||

    "...and it is no more difficult to distinguish between appropriately civil speech and illegal hate speech...."

    I don't know what hate speech is. It's looking more and more like speech that progressives in Portland don't like. Why do people in Portland seem so unhappy? Seems like a truly dreadful, unfun place, filled with genuinely angry people. Seems so odd for such a beautiful state.

    Lastly, I don't think hate speech is illegal. It may be despicable, it may be deplorable, but it's not illegal.

  • Quixote||

    It might still be legal in some places, but we will close those loopholes.

    Saying one doesn't even know what hate speech is, as opposed to conveying a legitimate idea, sounds sort of like saying one doesn't know what illegally deadpan "parody" is. This is the sort of thing one knows when one sees it, and if not, ask the judges and they will explain it.

  • BigT||

    Really?? Virtue signalling by politicians? Whoda thunk it!!

  • KevinP||

    Par for the course in Blue America. Why are liberal Democrat cities so dangerous and oppressive to minorities?

    Chicago, which has not had a Republican mayor since 1931:

    NBC News: 'Crook County' Author: Judicial System Stacked Against Blacks, Latinos


    Quote:
    Van Cleve documents how minority defendants in Chicago were referred to as "Mopes," a term with the same derogatory intent as the N-word. Fabricated police reports were overlooked.

    Rather than a case of rogue officers and "a few bad apples," Van Cleve presents a searing picture of systemic and deeply entrenched racism - including among defense attorneys. Those within the system who try to fight its defects often risk retaliation and isolation.

    Minority defendants, she writes, were often viewed as objects with no humanity. Van Cleve shows how even members of the public, such as defendants' family members, were routinely disrespected and subjected to humiliation and abuse.
  • Nardz||

    My father called me a mope many times when I was a child, for moping about something or another. Which usually just means acting dejected or sullen.
    Didn't realize it was a racial slur.
    Now I'm just confused.

    Are you sure it's not "moops"?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    I think in your case it's perhaps from your dad seeing you "moping", so unrelated to whatever particular meaning it might have had in early 30s Chicago?

  • Enemy of the State||

    The moops invaded Spain in the 14th century...

  • Tony||

    Portland is an odd duck. It's the poster city for hipster liberalism, but it also has an exceptionally racist history and remains a very white city, meaning its progressiveness tends toward the frivolous.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Portland is so white even I feel uncomfortable there.

  • damikesc||

    Portland is an odd duck. It's the poster city for hipster liberalism, but it also has an exceptionally racist history and remains a very white city, meaning its progressiveness tends toward the frivolous.

    What Progressive enclave isn't overwhelmingly white?

  • BigT||

    Yeah, I'm not sure the majority of black and latino voters are down with many of the progressive ideas. But they have been told that conservatives, libertarians, and Heffalumps are racist scum for so long that they cannot bear to vote for them. They just don't think it is a possibility that the progressive programs are actually harmful since they are sold on their intentions and rarely held accountable.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Chicago? Washington DC? New York City? Los Angeles?

  • damikesc||

    The actual PROGRESSIVE parts of those locations are lily white. Most blacks and Latinos give two shits about it.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    You can get any results you want by changing your definitions.

  • ThomasD||

    "Chicago? Washington DC? New York City? Los Angeles?"

    Majority blue, to be sure, but hardly 'progressive enclaves.

  • mamabug||

    Seattle. Pretty heavily Asian here.

  • vek||

    Yeah, white and Asian. Seattle has become a lot LESS black in recent years too, as we push them out for the Asians and more white folks!

    But Seattle is still one of the whitest major cities in the country. I think we're actually far and away the whitest city of our size, we were a few years ago anyway.

  • Radioactive||

    if I hate hate, does that make me a part of a hate group? Would hate that...

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You mean if a hater would hate hate, how much hate could a hater hate without becoming a hater himself?

    Thanks; I practically live for alliteration.

  • Radioactive||

    thanks for the clarification...I hate it when folks aren't clear!

  • mpercy||

    How much hate could a hater hate, if a hater could hate hate?

  • DrZ||

    Emergency, emergency, is there a woodchuck in the house!
    Inquiring minds need to know.

  • newshutz||

    He would hate as much hate, as a hater could hate, if a hater would hate hate.

  • Austen Heller||

    Intolerance will not be tolerated. There, I said it.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    To map this onto the modern political paradigm:

    Hater = white supremacist

    Hater of hater = woke progressive

    Hater of hater of hater = libertarian

    Hater of hater of hater of hater = pretty much everyone not a libertarian (or their moms)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    People who aren't me = brain dead morons until they prove otherwise.

  • ||

    You know, Tony. If you squint hard enough you'll see the answer in your own comment.

  • Radioactive||

    no one can squint that hard...

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, the environmental movement spearheaded by Teddy Roosevelt went hand in hand with the effort to keep out immigrants and "preserve the genetic stock" of White Americans from mixing with Southern and Eastern Europeans. Portland's urban containment policy has caused the percent of residents who are Black to decline. Progressives admire Portland for figuring out how to passive aggressively push out disadvantaged groups.

  • mpercy||

    "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American.

    "If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

    "We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one soul [sic] loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Huh. Kinda smart and reasonable for a Tony.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Frivolous, racist and overwhelmingly white.

    So, like every other "progressive" bastion.

  • JesseAz||

    Most liberals are inherently racist. Boston is still the most racist city in America. Liberals openly opine for overly white homogeneous countries like Norway. They believe they own the votes and respect of minorities and will deride them for not voting the way they say to vote. Democrats have always focused on race, from the KKK to now. Finally Democrats convinced minorities to self segragate. They finally got their 100 year wish.

  • KevinP||

    The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

    He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him


    Quote:
    Paul Welch came to the downtown protest Aug. 4 to let his political leanings be known.

    With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators.

    Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued.

    Video captured by Mike Bivins, a freelance journalist, shows what happened next.

    As Welch and the counter-protesters wrangle over the flag, another masked counter-protester begins to strike Welch's body from behind using a weapon concealed in black fabric.

    That person then uses the weapon to club Welch on the back of the head, causing him to collapse instantly. The demonstrator with the weapon wanders off.
  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Antifa is a seditious organization that should be destroyed. It is just another communist front.

  • Brandybuck||

    The history of Portand is explicitly racism. They still had whites-only ordinances as late as the 1970s. The far left progressivism is relatively recent, dating from around the late 80s.

    Even today you need sunglasses lest you are blinded by the glare of way way too many white bread progressives.

  • Radioactive||

    are they really any different that the marble rye or whole wheat progressives?

  • ThomasD||

    Right, because there is no history of racism in the progressive movement.

    Portland has been progressive all along.

  • Entelechy||

    " how is it that Portland could have such a problem that it feels the need to ban such groups?"

    The problem began in 1927 when it allowed the sale of white shoe polish, and the showing of the 'Our Gang ' and 'Laurel & Hardy' hate films of Hal Roach

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Gang

  • hayek > friedman||

    IMO, there two small minority groups on the right and left that love coming downtown to stir up trouble. I would support banning ANTIFA and the Proud Boys. They have have free speech when they've gone a year or so without instigating violence.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Portland is one of the communist run cities that should be under martial law

  • Crusty Juggler||

    There needs to be a real clear criteria by which we define these terms, because it can be up to the political will, which changes with the leadership."

    lol ok

  • Rich||

    You know a *real* hate group? People who use "criteria" incorrectly.

  • some guy||

    A valid point at the national level, not so much in Portlandia.

  • Radioactive||

    when can we start calling it Stupidia?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Whenever you like. A natural right of free speech pretty much guarantees that. You cannot be compelled to call it Wheelergrad, or Portland.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    It's important to note they only ban alt-right hate groups. So animal rights activists, who vehemently hate meat eaters, for example, are exempt. Just go out and ban the right-wing entirely, and become an official one party state. That's where this is headed.

  • KevinP||

    Leftists and progressives are so concerned about hate and racism because it thrives the most in their own midst:

    Portland ICE protesters spewed racist insults


    Quote:
    Federal officers policing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland say they were subjected to a barrage of hateful and at times racially-charged invective during the monthlong demonstration at the facility.

    Email records obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive detail some of the insults and taunting that several nonwhite federal officers say they endured.

    In emails obtained by the newsroom, one African American officer reported to an administrator that protesters "began yelling racial slurs" at him, including the N-word. The officer said he was also called a "blood traitor" and an Uncle Tom, a derogatory term implying a black person is acting subservient to whites for money or prestige.

    "These racial slurs have been directed at me throughout the entire length of the deployment," the officer wrote.

    Another officer, who is a woman of Hispanic and Native American descent, said she was called derogatory terms for Hispanic people and told she is "a weak female" and a "traitor."
  • BYODB||

    Yeah, I noticed that too. Antifa is perpetrating literal hate crimes left and right, and yet they are conspicuously absent from their list. One might think that they're more interested in silencing groups they don't agree with, or are so afraid of the real hate groups that they're enacting their agenda. Either way, Oregon is fucked.

    As attributed to Voltaire; To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

  • ||

    Omar Ilhan is....safe!

    But ump!

  • Rich||

    "I am not proud of many of the things my ancestors did, being from England," said Fritz. "The colonization, the slavery, the invasion of this country, the annihilation of the Native American people,"

    "the spitting in the slippers, the pissing in the orange juice."

  • some guy||

    I am not proud of any of those, and I'm sorry for all of it, and I'm sorry for what's happened in Portland over the last two hundred years.

    Why are you sorry for things that happened before you were born and that you had no control over. Are you also sorry for every one of your caveman ancestors that did something bad to a different caveman ancestor? How far back do we have to go? Why can't we just treat each person as an individual and judge them solely on their own actions?

  • Rich||

    That's just crazy talk. Genocide is in Fritz's *DNA*.

  • ||

    Fritz is narcissist with a piece of corn stuck in their brain.

    Someone should fish it out.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Please. "Stuck in HIS brain." Fritz is a singular, not a plural, noun. Let's not play the stupid grammar games of the "woke" left.

  • Austen Heller||

    Why? The grievance and victim industries would be finished. So no, economically those two (one?) groups are crucial to the economic health of America.

  • damikesc||

    And what about the others?

    Is he upset that his ancestors didn't kidnap slaves but bought them from fellow Africans? (don't get why white slave owners are bad but black ones are OK, but that's progressivism for you). Is he upset over how the Natives slaughtered one another routinely?

  • BYODB||

    You forget that the assumption in Progressivism is that white people are a superior race, and because of this everything is their fault. They're the only race with accountability for that reason. It would be amusing if it wasn't so fucked up that the central premise of progressivism is that white people are literally the best race while simultaneously they are the most evil race.

    It's the new and improved version of Catholic guilt. You get to feel superior basically all the time for the things you believe, but you also gotta believe that you're an evil piece of trash at the same time to counter-balance.

  • Jerryskids||

    And white males are superior to white females. Women and minorities just "are" a certain way, they all think alike and act alike because that's just the way it is and you have to accept it. White men, on the other hand, are expected to understand and change their ways and their attitudes toward women and minorities. White men, in other words, are endowed with free will and can choose how to behave whereas women and minorities are a lower form of animal lacking free will and the ability to change their nature.

  • BYODB||

    Essentially, yes, that is their position. They couch it in some sort of power vs. no power argument where if you don't have any power it's ok to be blatantly racist/sexist/whateverist yet somehow they fail to notice that politically speaking they appear to win most of the social issues they engage in. What is that, if not power?

    The historical angle is basically meaningless to anyone who is actually alive, but they play that angle up time and time again. Mostly as a way to explode capitalism, which is always their end goal.

  • Radioactive||

    not to mention the shitty graffiti...

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    For a compelling argument that hate speech does not deserve First Amendment protection, see Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky's piece Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    From what I can tell, he wrote one article for Reason. Nice smear attempt by collectivization, when Reason has been a resolute defender of the First Amendment.

  • BigT||

    Sarc meter on the fritz??

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    OBLT should hand out sarc meters like 3D movie glasses.

  • Zeb||

    It's not really sarcasm so much as weak-assed parody.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Zeb and I agree on something again.

    Wtf is happening?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    You finally found your soulmate?

  • mpercy||

    Poe's law.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    He argues for infringing on freedom of speech because it hurts people's feelings.

    By that rationale, same-sex marriage could be banned because that also hurts people's feelings.

    Given this Berlatsky principle, that civil rights could be abrogated to protect people's feelings, the question is not what civil rights could be abrogated for this purpose.

    The question is, what could not?

  • Rich||

    "Is the Mormon Church a hate group because of their anti-gay initiative?"

    "Assfuck, yeah!"

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Anyone who believes in any sort of objective, fixed morality is part of a hate group according to these traitors. Something is going to have to be done about groups like these, sooner or later.

  • Tony||

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to hate, yo.

  • BigT||

    Yes, and the right to enunciate such hate. The answer to bad or hate speech is more speech.

  • some guy||

    Yep. Otherwise you're allowing the haters to portray themselves as victims. And victimhood has power.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Victimhood has power only in an inverted and perverse world.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    To wit, the world in which we live

  • Rich||

    The answer to bad or hate speech is more speech.

    Archetypical HATE SPEECH!!

  • Radioactive||

    or more hate speech?

  • BigT||

    Hate of hate speech.

    Reasoned, thoughtful commentary would be better. But maybe not as easy to produce and often ignored.

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    Yep. Or in your case the freedom to be a retarded mouth breathing idiot.

  • Longtobefree||

    That is the speech of a hating bigot.

  • Don't look at me!||

    No mouth breathers were harmed during the production of this post.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True. For example, I hate Tony, because Tony is an evil slaver.

  • wreckinball||

    Missing the part of 1A which restricts something called "hate speech". Here it is:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The "shall make no law" part seems to be a problem for some folks.

  • Rich||

    "Oh, very well. We'll call it a 'regulation'."

  • wreckinball||

    Oh the hair splitting, the government can't restrict speech no matter what you call it. But they may try anything these days.

    Illinios is going for a two-fer, 1A and 2A.

    They restrict your 2A rights because they don;t like your free speech.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Maybe they can't define hate speech but they'll know it when they see it.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yes, like porn.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    You have to ban it to find out what's in it.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Libel? Slander?

    The same problem exists with the second amendment, and all the others. The excuse is that "freedom of speech" has always been historically understood to not include libel, slander, military secrets, and so on. The "right to keep and bear arms" has always been historically understood to not include ... well, not sure what, but the Progressives know it when they see it; notwithstanding that in the founders' days, it included cannon, whether on land or in ships.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    The headline made me think this was a Robby story.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    The headline made me think this was a Robby story.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Squirrels agree.

  • wreckinball||

    "I am not proud of many of the things my ancestors did, being from England," said Fritz. "The colonization, the slavery, the invasion of this country, the annihilation of the Native American people,"

    Yea because roaming nomadic tribal life is so great! And of course is so common these days. WTF

  • Radioactive||

    I have to say we did a piss poor job with respect to the annihilation thing, obviously there are still way too many hanging around, need another shipment of those blankets, this time lets use Ebola though...

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, annihilate must mean something new, like a lot of other words; because no one annihilated the racist hater with the drum - - - - - - - -

  • NashTiger||

    My English ancestors were oppressed by the Celts, the Romans, the Saxons, the Angles, the Jutes, the Vikings, and the Normans. It was the bad Roman/Saxon/Norman blood that oppressed my Irish and Scot ancestors. My poor childrens Irish Catholic ancestors oppressed their Irish Protestant ancestors, after the Catholics were oppressed by the Tudors. Don't get me started o my Cherokee ancestors (more than 1/1024th).....

  • Rat on a train||

    Europeans like to regularly beat the shit out of each other. If you are mixed-European, the self hatred is intense.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Yeah, Spain, Great Britain and France have a lot of explaining to do.

  • ||

    And what about the Italian explorers, bankers and merchants who bankrolled and profited off some of these expeditions? Don't they have to some 'splainin' to do too?

  • Jerryskids||

    And why you would take pride in something you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with is beyond me.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    She can make it right by killing herself live on Facebook and deeding her stolen land back to the Native tribes that roamed there.

  • DajjaI||

    "There is no feeling like being muzzled. Cut out your tongue," he wrote in one post.

    The problem with restricting freedom is that people lash out with violence. In fact this is why our ancestors left Europe - to escape the witch hunts and wars caused by censorship. Portland is making a huge mistake if they go backwards. Better to let the idiots like Jeremy Joseph Christian rant.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    This in so many ways! It's common knowledge, both with people and with psychiatrists, that bottling up your emotions just leads to bigger outbursts later.

    It ought to be just as common knowledge that bottling up society has the same effect.

    The best way to reduce racism is to let the racists operate publicly; let then restrict who they sell to and buy from, who they hire; who can join their clubs. Most people will leave them in droves out of disgust. But when you make bigotry illegal, all you do is drive it underground and give it the flavor of being a rebellion against conformity.

  • DajjaI||

    Yup. This is the mistake that Europe is making. Yellow Vests in France are a direct result of censorship. They have no choice but to go out into the streets. The rationale is that if you don't restrict the people's freedom, they will become fascist and commit genocide. But the reverse is true. It becomes an escalating cycle. I'm following this guy who is antifa/DSA and went to grad school in Portland. He wrote a book about how you have to crack down on Nazis or they'll overrun your cities. He's a smart guy. Whether it's genuine attempt to prevent violence or completely cynical, I have discovered, is a pursuit that is unprofitable.

  • rafozufave||

    i am doing online google work at home and earn $7800 very month at home easily just spend 2 to 3 hours daily on internet without any investment.if you i want to introduce its to my all friend,s to get start online working and earn money at home without any investment.if you interested look at this site.....● www.Aprocoin.com

  • rafozufave||

    i am doing online google work at home and earn $7800 very month at home easily just spend 2 to 3 hours daily on internet without any investment.if you i want to introduce its to my all friend,s to get start online working and earn money at home without any investment.if you interested look at this site.....● www.Aprocoin.com

  • Longtobefree||

    It's really simple; hate groups are the groups I hate.

  • Longtobefree||

    Do all the constitution hating gun control groups count as hate groups?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    To me they do; fuck em' all.

  • Dillinger||

    Intolerant Portland = Hate Group

  • Gasman||

    Simple. A hate group is one that expresses intolerant viewpoints of others opinions and beliefs.
    Ergo, Portland city council is a hate group.

  • esteve7||

    Yes our brave firefighting national media will cover Peter King's dumb comments and ask every republican in the country about them. But they will completely ignore left wing fascists trying to kill people with bike locks because they held an American Flag.

  • Sevo||

    "Portland Wants to Ban Hate Groups, Has No Idea How To Define 'Hate Group'"

    Sure they do: Anybody they don't like.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's a living document, definitions become restrictive and they prefer to let the meaning evolve over time.

    "First they came for the KKK and I said nothing..." - any random white person in South Africa.

  • ElvisIsReal||

    As a near-Portland local, I just shake my head at what that city has turned into the last 20 years or so. As for this legislation, we can be 100% certain that criticizing local politicians will be deemed a hate crime.

  • ||

    Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day... Get regular payment on a weekly basis... All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time... Read more here...

    So I started....>>>>>>>> www.Mesalary.com

  • Brandybuck||

    This is a job for the individuals of Portland to deal with, the City Council is powerless to impose a cultural change. Culture comes from teh bottom up. Leftists can't understand that. They think everything good can only come from the government. But it was Portland government that institutionalized racism in the city.

    Stop standing aroudn protesting for someone else to do something, get out there and do it yourself! Sheesh.

  • ||

    This Wheeler guy sounds like a real jerk.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    How the city plans to enact the condemnation was not addressed during the February 8 meeting, the resolution not yet more than an appeal for Portlanders to take ownership of their historic discrimination and hate and to pledge to do better.

    While they are at it, they can list the party affiliation of the politicians who passed those historic discriminatory laws. The Democrats were the party of Jim Crow until the riots in the 1960's.

  • ||

    I went to Ted's Twitter handle. Really heavy on the STORMAWATCH, eh? He sounds like a cuck.

    We're expecting up 20 inches (and it's -20c!) and everyone is all like, huh. We'll manage.

    Montreal's Mayor saluted the late great bad assFrank Robinson - he managed the Expos.

  • Fats of Fury||

    I hate Portland in the spring time
    I hate Portland in the fall
    I hate Portland in the winter when it drizzles
    I hate Portland in the summer when it drizzles some more.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    "I am not proud of many of the things my ancestors did, being from England," said Fritz. "The colonization, the slavery, the invasion of this country, the annihilation of the Native American people, I am not proud of any of those, and I'm sorry for all of it, and I'm sorry for what's happened in Portland over the last two hundred years."

    I have a feeling that the fight against racism has morphed into a vehicle for reminding everyone that someone is old money, or at least a member of the old stock. You don't see many Slavic-Americans apologizing for slavery or Polish-Americans saying they should not have colonized Sweden.

  • ||

    Or Austrian-Hungarians of Italians.

    BUT THEY DON'T COUNT BECAUSE WHITE.

    And Trump.

  • Brandybuck||

    Don't forget the Swedes invading Finland!

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    If Fritz is going to go all historical and shit on England about slavery, he might as well be completely honest and give some love to England for abolishing the slave trade effective 1/1/1808. But on second thought that would mean having something positive to say about the white man, and that can't happen. Because we hate the white man! Ooops ….

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "This last testimony does not reflect anything in the resolution."

    No shit.

  • Kevin S. Van Horn||

    So, only *white* supremacists and *alt-right* hate groups are to be condemned; racial supremacists and hate groups in general are just fine, as long as they're not *white* supremacists or *alt-right* hate groups.

  • tinwhistler||

    Try Muslims, Democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, and anyone else that does not respect the right to private property and freedom from government extortion and control.

  • Rob Misek||

    Once again, the issue isn't complex, but when people don't like simple reality, they try to make it complex so they can avoid taking responsibility for their hypocrisy.

    Simply, hatred is conflict, and logically conflict in the written or spoken word is the result of a lie. Truth is reality, so no rational person would be in conflict with it.

    All hatred is based on a lie just as truth is never hatred. All it takes is logic and science to demonstrate this fact.

    The only way to logically criminalize all hatred is to criminalize all lying.

    Exit hypocrites.

  • Ed Grinberg||

    "...emergency ordinance to restrict potentially violent public protests..."
    I think I know how that will work:
    - Republican / conservative event -- prohibited (Antifa might show up and make things "violent")
    - Democratic / liberal event -- allowed (zero likelihood of Republican / conservative "violence")

  • buybuydandavis||

    Easy.
    Hate groups are the groups those in power hate. They're flexing their totalitarian muscle.

    Remember. Anyone in a red hat is part of a "hate group". Don't smile while white.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Come on, this kind of crap is far from useless. It get progressives elected (and re-elected).

  • DrZ||

    I think I got it: Portland hates hate groups.

  • DrZ||

    Waitaminute - that makes Portland a hate group!

  • hayek > friedman||

    Antifa and Proud Boy types like to stir up unrest, riots, and violence downtown all the time. It's annoying, irritating to locals, and hostile to tourists. All sides habitually destroy private property, block traffic, pick fights with random people. I would be concerned about their speech rights if they didn't have a history clearly wanting to instigate trouble. There are reasonable limits to the bill of rights. The first amendment doesn't protect you when you yell fire in a crowded theater. The 2nd amendment doesn't allow you to own your own nuclear arsenal at home.

    As such, it's reasonable to ban groups whose history makes it obvious that they are more interested in inciting riots and violence than promoting new ideas. It is typical of these groups to start trouble and then cry that their speech rights are being trampled on when cities decide they don't like their downtown areas being smashed up every other weekend.

    I'm sure they'll be a bunch of conservatives in libertarian clothing here seeing this as a progressive overreach, but the cops in Portland have show just as much propensity to go after the little Antifa brats as they do the bible thumping, gun-toting inbred crowd.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Unless Antifa falls under the umbrella of white supremacists and alt-right they are excluded from the resolution so I don't see how it enhances law and order.

  • hayek > friedman||

    unfortunately, they don't ban Antifa, but i still think it's appropriate to ban said alt-nazi and white supremacists groups - at least the ones that have a history of instigating riots downtown. The 1st amendment means the federal government can't punish you for most types of your speech (you still can't incite mass violence, yell fire in a crowded theater, libel, etc). It doesn't mean local municipalities have to give you physical space to have little nazi parades.

    "I don't see how it enhances law and order." - that's silly. It takes two to tango. So, if you remove one side of the equation, there's no longer two to tango. As much as Antifa brats suck, if they proud boys stay home, they will go back to sipping kombucha, eating kale, and complaining to mommy and daddy about their monthly stipend.

  • Kevin Smith||

    You realize the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" was a hypothetical example by a Supreme Court Justice, and not an actual law in any jurisdiction, right?

    Things like inciting to riot and acts of violence are already illegal, and banning groups because you think they might do something illegal is textbook prior restraint, something the Supreme Court has consistently found unconstitutional

    To go back to the theater example, its the difference between fining or jailing someone for yelling fire and causing a panic, and requiring people to be physically gagged before walking into a theater (to prevent them from yelling fire and causing a panic)

  • Nardz||

    There are many examples of antifa rioting and committing violence without the presence of proud boys.

    Do you have any examples of proud boys rioting and/or committing violence absent the presence of antifa?

    You seem inclined to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with progressive intersectionality perspective is a hateful bigot...

  • Marcus Antonius||

    Is it alright for me to hate Communism, Socialism, Fascism? How about ANTIFA? The Democrats? Can I hate people who wish to enslave, by removing my rights to Firearm Ownership? I could certainly go on, but you should get it from this!

  • Heresy Hunter||

    Wouldn't signs decrying the haters of the world classify as intolerant, even hateful. I mean, their understanding of free speech is downright laughable. But what is really scary is the common disregard for property rights in the name of tolerance. Antidiscrimination laws make it illegal to actively follow your beliefs even on your own property.
    DOWN WITH ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS.

  • qoheleth||

    This helps highlight the issue of policing ways of thinking versus actions. While it's reasonable to think that white supremacist thinking will prompt actions which most folks wouldn't like, we should keep the law to addressing actions that are deemed harmful to property and people. Leave ways of thinking to be sorted out in the marketplace of ideas.

  • Cloudbuster||

    All the actions that are harmful to property and people are already illegal. So we can send all the legislators home for a well-deserved break.

  • Heresy Hunter||

    Like Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, the government can never reach the place where it judges opinions rather than actions.

  • Art Gecko||

    I'm the president of the Psychologists' Society for Mental Health and Adjustment Through Fulfillment. We're a hate group. In the sense that we cure hate and fear. We hate hate. Hate it.

  • wikimuma||

    Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day... Get regular payment on a weekly basis... All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time... Read more here...

    So I started....>>>>>>>> www.Aprocoin.com

  • ||

    I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you…

    c­h­e­c­k t­h­i­s l­i­n-k >>>>>>>>>> www.Geosalary.com

  • ConstitutionalDon||

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

  • Cloudbuster||

    All reasons to give a resolution like this actual teeth

    Are you fucking kidding me?

  • wreckinball||

    Patriot Prayer uses the Proud Boys as body guards. They speak and the ANTIFA's attempt to attack them and the police watch the ANTIFA's attack people. The Proud Boys then many tomes beat the crap out of ANTIFA. Which I admit is humorous

    In NYC this happened and the Proud Boys exercised self defense and they were the ones arrested.

    Here is an idea. If you are in law enforcement STOP FUCKING VIRTUE SIGNALLING AND ENFORCE THE LAW.

    Free speech = yes, any of it. Violently attacking folks who exercise free speech = no assault and battery its called.

  • colorblindkid||

    "Racism comes in many forms," said Wadji Said, of the Muslim Educational Trust

    I have a feeling Wadji Said is a raging racist

  • vek||

    "All reasons to give a resolution like this actual teeth, and processes by which to achieve success."

    Uhhhhhh, what? This is NOT libertarian. Specifically targeting groups because of their "wrong think" is the exact opposite of freedom... Especially when it is targeted at specific ends of the political spectrum, Tucker Carlson is alt-right now according to half these idiots.

  • awildseaking||

    "I am not proud of many of the things my ancestors did, being from England," said Fritz. "The colonization, the slavery, the invasion of this country, the annihilation of the Native American people, I am not proud of any of those, and I'm sorry for all of it, and I'm sorry for what's happened in Portland over the last two hundred years.""

    Fritz is a total cuck. Congratulations, you just described humanity. Everyone colonized, enslaved, invaded and annihilated. That's no reason to be ashamed of what those actions produced, especially since America remains an anomaly in terms of personal freedom and constitutional government.

  • vek||

    I'm proud of all of those things! Europeans are the most badass people in the history of the world, because we did better at being assholes than anybody else! Sure, we were still assholes... But we were the best at it. And that's worth something!

    We also invented basically everything of any importance in the modern world, lifted the whole globe out of eternal poverty and misery, landed people on the moon, etc. That stuff is pretty dope too. Self hating white people disgust me. They are indeed useless fucking cucks.

  • vek||

    This kind of crap is ridiculous.

    I will believe these people are actually against "racism" when I see them denouncing the Black Israelite's, Farrakhan, La Raza, etc. Until then they're just being anti white, anti conservative hacks.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    -- I'd like to thank ALMOST everyone...

    Mighty White of you there, Commissioner.

  • ThomasD||

    What is it about Reason authors and their ability to assume good will in the absence of any evidence? And why is this assumption only granted to the leftists?

    Or is the problem that all J-school graduates are thus infected?

  • vek||

    It's because they're all progressives at heart nowadays. I like to call the modern Cosmotarians "Progressives who kind of sort of understand economics." because that is really what they are when you get down to it.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Politicians creed: Hate is easy to define, it is what I say it is, and anyone that disagrees with me is hateful.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Alternatively, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

  • babu218||

    The developer chose to stop updating the app and will be shutting down the app's streams. There are a large number of Terrarium TV alternatives n explore, however, that will still give you loads of live TV on your Android device or any other device you use to stream.

  • lucidi||

    Is it worth listening to some bullshit I'd scan and bypass?
    Transcript or STFU.
    You $2 donation is falling fast.

    CLICK HERE...►►►►►► www.Aprocoin.com

  • ||

    Is it worth listening to some bullshit I'd scan and bypass?
    Transcript or STFU.
    You $2 donation is falling fast.

    CLICK HERE...►►►►►► www.2citypays.com

  • TxJack 112||

    If you seek to ban hate groups then you must first acknowledge that hate is on both ends of political spectrum. You cannot ban white supremacists and alt-right groups and ignore alt-left and racist groups like the Black Panther Party or Nation of Islam. The problem with progressives is they always see issues such as hate from one point of view which is why any such ordinance would be unconstitutional. In addition you have the problem with the 1st amendment. Speech, even hate speech is protected and sadly it is those who are the first to claim they are open minded, tolerant and diverse who are also the first to fail to understand what it means to be any of them.

  • Rob Misek||

    Hate speech is not protected.

    Hatred is conflict, and conflict in speech is always based on a lie.

    The courts have ruled that lying is not protected speech. How could they when they demand that you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"?

    Criminalize lying to create an environment conducive to justice, like it is in court, and you will have criminalized all hate speech.

    It's that simple.

  • vek||

    You're full of shit, on all counts.

    Hate speech is explicitly protected, as per the supreme court. Whether you like it or not.

    And not all hateful/conflict based speech is based on lies. Much of it is based on unpleasant truths.

    For instance, I hate black ghetto people, because they're responsible for 50% of the murders in the USA, despite only making up 12% of the population. They also disproportionately rape people, both black women, but VASTLY disproportionately rape women of other races compared to how many white or Asian men do it.

    I find all of that, and a lot more horrible. Therefore I hate those types of ghetto ass black people.

    That is all true. It is a rational basis for my hatred of those people. Just as I have a rational hatred for child rapists. Or people who mug little old ladies.

    You're completely full of shit dude.

  • Rob Misek||

    It sounds like you hate the behaviour of some people which is based on lies.

    Therefore your hatred is based on lies.

    Dipshit.

    Lying is not protected speech.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-lying-protected-
    under-freedom-of-speech

  • Olderthandirt-stillkickin||

    ...The only so-called "hate groups" in this country are the self righteous pucks pumping their fists and waving placards while railing against "hate groups".....

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online