Government's "Hate Directory"

I offer this for an open debate -- not about the individual web sites or their stances, most of which I find appalling -- but on the issue of whether the government should be keeping such a list.

Here is a military site that has compiled a comprehensive "Hate Directory," or a tremendous roundup of every web page on the net that caters to religious or racial intolerance. Most of the sites, as far as I can tell reading the list, are either white power or anti-semetic.

The question I have is whether this should be a function in the government? Should anyone be tracking and classifying sites as hate. On the surface, most of these sites are hate-filled, and I agree with the terminology. But how long before the powers-that-be determine that, say, Drudgereport.com or abovetopsecret.com are hate sites?

Is this list a precident we really want?

I amend this post for some follow-up.

While this is a government web site, this list itself is the work of someone name Ray Franklin, who is Maryland's Assistant Director of the Police and Correctional Training Commissions.

he compiled this site for instructional purposes.

Ray Franklin's home page

I've got a counter-question for you:

Should the FBI maintain a list of tattoos that are correlated with various prison gangs?

Or create genealogies for mob families?


I think the situation is analogous.

People aren't punished for believing what they do, but for acting in a criminal manner based on those beliefs.

Law enforcement has the job of trying to keep tabs on organized criminal behavior. How else should they perform their job? Should they wait until a building is blown up, or a synagogue is a smoking ruin, or until the members of some "church" have all been murdered/suicided?

If you do business that way, then your not being law enforcement, your just a janitor, mopping up the blood.

.

Good point.

But should such a law enforcement list be available for public scrutiny?

Tattoos and genealogies provide common links to those already proven guilty and provide logical clues to closely-associated others who may similarly offend. Gangs are a version of family crime organisations such as the 'Mob'.

Gangs and Mob-families are known offenders. Their crimes are proven and many of their members imprisoned.

Web-sites and their members are not proven offenders: they are 'suspects', based on their exercising of opinion, or what some would term 'freedom of speech'.

Vast difference between monitoring the activities of close associates of proven criminals and the monitoring of those who have committed no crime other than to voice their opinion.

It's part of having transparent law enforcement. You cannot find the FBI tattoo file online, as far as I know; but several large police departments have posted their own versions.

At least this way, civilians can get an idea of who are current "persons of interest." IF the list becomes known, then secret groups automatically have less power, if landlords and store clerks or neighbors can give relevant info to the authorities. It also keeps people from joining the group by mistake, without realizing what the group really stands for.

If you found your church or "nordic historical society" on the list, you could protest, and start a public debate about how you are not haters, you just want people to enjoy your culture or whatever. IF your claims were true, I'm sure you'd get off the list pretty quick.

And probably meet a lot more folks who are just like the taste of fermented herring.

originally posted by dr_strangecraft: " At least this way, civilians can get an idea of who are current "persons of interest." IF the list becomes known, then secret groups automatically have less power, if landlords and store clerks or neighbors can give relevant info to the authorities. It also keeps people from joining the group by mistake, without realizing what the group really stands for."

Does the above refer to gang-tattoos, or to the 'Hate Lists' in the OP?

Both, in my line of thinking. Criminal conspiracies thrive on secrecy. One of the ways you limit their power is by labeling them, letting people know what they really stand for.

Before the Aryan Nations became widely known, the frequently recruited among survivalists, while downplaying their active racism. Once they became known by that name, the rural communities where they sought to hide out often helped the authorities in locating them and bringing them to justice.

Afterward, they splintered, and took on new names, so that new recruits, and especially outsiders, wouldn't realize their true aims.

Wikipedia article on Aryan Nations

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Both, in my line of thinking. Criminal conspiracies thrive on secrecy. One of the ways you limit their power is by labeling them, letting people know what they really stand for.

Before the Aryan Nations became widely known, the frequently recruited among survivalists, while downplaying their active racism. Once they became known by that name, the rural communities where they sought to hide out often helped the authorities in locating them and bringing them to justice.

Afterward, they splintered, and took on new names, so that new recruits, and especially outsiders, wouldn't realize their true aims.

Wikipedia article on Aryan Nations

This is a good debate. But I agree with the other poster: Your original point is well-made. Illuminate the criminal organization to public knowledge and you help kill the organization.

But those on this list aren't "criminal" in light of U.S. law. They are perhaps disgusting and immoral, but free speech ruling the day, they have a right to say that Christ was an alien and will exterminate all blue people if they want to.

This list isn't highlighting criminal organizations, or even quasi-criminal elements like bike gangs such as Satan's Servants. They're highlighting them because of an opinion. That may be crossing a line.

I disagree completely. They are not punishing them. Just highlighting them.

Think of it as starting a conversation about what various groups believe.


Besides, if the criminals have free speech, why don't the cops?



.