White Nationalist Groups Given Non-Profit Status
Introduction
The issue of freedom of speech has been relevant for the entire period of humanity’s existence. Sponsoring various racist organizations and granting them non-profit status is a relatively controversial decision. However, it must be borne in mind that the values of freedom are that all people have the right to express their own thoughts and ideas. On the other hand, it is necessary to understand the criterion determining that such freedom does not pose a danger to the population. A negative socio-legal phenomenon consists in the expression of socially pathological extreme views reflecting various beliefs aimed at radical changes by illegal, mainly violent, measures. Therefore, it is necessary to define the boundaries of what is permissible so that the existing principles of public safety are not adversely affected. The provision of additional opportunities by government agencies can create a negative precedent, therefore it is necessary to carefully study organizations and their features.
Government Tax Incentives and Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Association
In essence, the country recognizes ideological and political diversity multiparty system; no ideology can be established as State or mandatory. On the other hand, the creation and activities of public associations whose goals or actions are aimed at forcibly changing the foundations of the constitutional system and violating the integrity of the country, undermining the security of the State, creating armed formations, inciting social, racial, national and religious discord are monitored. International legal standards in human rights, proclaiming the right of every person to freedom of expression, stipulate that any speech in favor of national, racial, or religious hatred, including incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, should be prohibited by law (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). At the same time, actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity should be understood only as statements justifying and asserting the need for genocide, mass repressions, deportations, committing other illegal actions, including the use of violence, against representatives of any nation, race, adherents of a particular religion and other groups persons.
On the other hand, criticism of political organizations, ideological and religious associations, political, ideological, or religious beliefs, and national or customs should not be considered an action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. Therefore, assessing the decision of The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to award such a status to racist organizations, it is necessary to pay attention to the essence of their activities. Often, such organizations aim to disseminate materials and information which can pose an immediate threat to representatives of other races and nationalities (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). Consequently, in this case, freedom of speech and self-expression is not determining factor in providing opportunities for private organizations to collect donations (Herzig & Brunson, 2017). In such a situation, we are talking about the realization of the safety and comfortable life of the country’s population, which should not be exposed to danger.
Thus, freedom of speech is not only a natural right of every individual but also the basis for the implementation of democracy in the State, ensuring reliable information about events taking place in the world. At the same time, freedom of speech is not always a positive phenomenon and benefits the development of civil society and democracy (Brunson, 2021). The exercise of freedom of expression can lead to negative consequences: threats to the public, State, and national security, alienation from generally accepted moral and cultural values (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). The most dangerous manifestations of freedom of speech are regarded as crimes and are prohibited by criminal law under threat of punishment. Abuse of freedom of speech in the form of dissemination of extremist information causes harm to the individual and society, its constitutional and spiritual, and moral principles (Brunson, 2021). Therefore, the State establishes certain regulatory restrictions to ensure a balance between the realization of freedom of speech and the protection of other constitutional, spiritual, and moral values.
Despite the reasonable goals, the established legal restrictions are constantly being criticized and debated, which can be reduced to two essentially opposite approaches. Thus, according to one approach, the restriction of freedom of speech, according to its supporters, contributes to democracy. The restriction of freedom of speech does not prohibit business and constructive criticism of public authorities or discussions on controversial issues of state governance. However, it only develops democratic principles: ensuring the order of public relations, creating favorable conditions for personal development (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). Proponents of a different approach believe that there is more harm than good in the established legal restrictions on freedom of speech; through expressing one’s own opinion, a person self-actualizes. This is their inalienable and sacred right. After all, only with the pluralism of opinions and ideas is the existence of democracy and self-government possible (Ehrenfreund, 2018). Prohibitions on certain statements deprive an individual of direct participation in solving social problems and governing the State (Brunson, 2021). It is impossible to achieve democratic ideals without the freedom to implement individual opinions, public discussion, and public awareness.
Unfortunately, the proponents of this approach do not take into account the seriousness of the threats of extremist information, generally recognized principles, and norms of international law. After all, restrictions on freedom of speech are established not in connection with the content of information but in accordance with the dangerous consequences that its dissemination entails (Ehrenfreund, 2018). For example, as a result, threats and statements that give rise to imminent illegal acts, enmity, and the desire for personal revenge are limited.
Therefore, legal counteraction to extremist activity should be carried out, on the one hand, following constitutional and international guarantees of freedom of speech, on the other – the established responsibility for the abuse of freedom of speech. Consequently, granting the status of non-profit organizations to various racist groups by The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a contradictory action (Brunson, 2021). It is necessary to investigate and analyze in more detail the principles of the organization and activities of such organizations. It is necessary to ensure that their materials and statements do not provide a direct call for violence or non-discrimination against representatives of other nationalities and races (Herzig & Brunson, 2017). In this case, it should be understood that equal opportunities in self-expression are the key to the progress of the state and its prosperity since the population’s opinion is considered.
Based on the fact that a specific part of the country’s population has extremist or close to extremist views, it is necessary to consider that in the United States, it is not prohibited from having these views. However, it is restricted to implementing them in violent ways. In its activities, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should not violate the principle of priority of human rights and freedoms, but it is also necessary to consider public interests (Brunson, 2021). This is due to the fact that it is necessary to use legal means to eliminate the danger both for individual citizens and for society as a whole from extremist activity, but at the same time to avoid extremes in the form of restrictions on freedom of thought or the introduction of a national ideology.
In relation to such organizations, it is necessary to develop additional tracking methods to assess their status most correctly. A complete ban on their existence is the wrong decision, as it leads to a violation of the principles of freedom and democracy (Herzig & Brunson, 2017). However, for any left-wing and right-wing organizations that gravitate towards activities bordering on extremism, it is necessary to introduce several additional restrictions. It should be directly related to the fact that such organizations should guarantee the preservation of the principles of security of the country’s population (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). Therefore, constructive criticism should be a priority activity without calling for any violent actions.
Racist organizations try to express their views peacefully only in order to lay the foundation for violent activities. Because in order to put their program into practice, they need the appearance of their social legitimization (Ehrenfreund, 2018). The fact that the state provides them with a platform to express their ideas gives them the opportunity to cause physical harm to people. Public speeches that promote hate ideologies are always closely linked to violent actions (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). By associating themselves with ideologies and movements based on oppression and genocide, they demonstrate their intention to adopt this violent legacy, but only if they can develop a springboard for support. However, it is necessary to look for a universal approach that will allow all citizens to have the opportunity to express their ideas and thoughts.
Conclusion
The State, represented by law enforcement and regulatory agencies, must have solid and concrete grounds for restricting constitutional rights and freedoms. Only clearly formulated and non-expansive interpretations of the rules can be a guarantee of the validity of legal restrictions. Blocking access to any financial instrument should be carried out solely on the basis of court decisions. Calls for the extremist activity should be understood only as calls for direct violent actions that threaten the security of citizens. Civil society and the State need to jointly work out a balance between protecting the political rights of citizens and protecting the foundations of the constitutional system, without which the normal functioning of the political system is impossible. White-nationalist propaganda organizations must have a certain status that will assign them direct responsibility for creating, disseminating, and publishing information containing calls for conscience or violence on the grounds of race, nationality, or religion.
It is necessary to realize that the world community has long ago developed the foundations of human rights based on morality and mutual respect. Violation of these principles is a threat to society, respectively the promotion of the development of such organizations poses an immediate threat to the State itself. Thus, it is in their interests to preserve the security of multinational people. The existing principles are based precisely on the fact that certain factors cannot be decisive in the fact that any person is less worthy than another. The ideology of white-nationalist propaganda organizations is often based on an opinion that seeks to destroy these principles, which puts the public in danger.
Freedom of speech, and accordingly, the possibility of functioning of such organizations, depends precisely on how their activities are conducted. An acceptable measure is criticism of various political decisions that may restrict the rights and freedoms of the white population. However, any appeals and activities should not be directed to the use of violent forms of the exercise of power. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the specifics of the fact that even peaceful demonstrations can have an aggressive background. Thus, it is important to restrain a certain framework that will meet the needs of the country’s entire population. However, summing up, it should be noted that the decision of The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was justified, as it was aimed at maintaining constitutional rights. However, it is necessary to dissect the activities of white-nationalist propaganda organizations more cautiously in order to prevent the spread of violent ideology.
The Fundamental Difference Between an Opinion and a Reasoned Position
The ultimate goal of argumentation is to convince the audience of the truth of a position, to persuade people to accept the author’s point of view, and to encourage reflection or action. Due to argumentation, a person can clearly explain his point of view to someone, confirm the truth with solid arguments, and exclude misunderstanding. Well-reasoned judgments minimize doubts and speak about the truthfulness and seriousness of hypotheses, assumptions, and statements. My answer is a connected logical reasoning chain containing additional information and facts. In addition, it must be borne in mind that various academic sources are used in my work. This factor genuinely strengthens the position, as it is intended to demonstrate to another person that a study has been conducted on the relevant topic. Consequently, the facts given in the answer have a logical justification. Thus, an opinion differs from a reasoned position in that it has a specific structure on the basis of the statement.
The opinion is only limited reasoning, which does not have a sufficient scientific or thesis justification. It directly depends on the circumstances and the education of the author of the statement. However, my answer is based not only on my own view of the world order but also on additional information that I have an academic justification. This feature allows me to get ahead of my essay as a reasoned position that has a clear structure and completeness. The main difference from the opinion is the presupposition of various actors and their consideration from different points of view in order to be able to determine the correct position and interpretation of reality.
An opinion is a belief, assessment, or point of view that a person has about a particular subject. It differs from the position in that it does not have such deep feelings and reasoning as in the position. An opinion is only a neutral statement of a certain fact, and it is not an emphasis on the meaning of a personal position, not an assessment of a fact or an expression of some attitude to it. This is fundamentally different from the answer I gave, which contains both the author’s personal opinion and academic credibility.
References
Brunson, S. D. (2021). Addressing hate: Georgia, the IRS, and the Ku Klux Klan. Virginia Tax Review, 41(1), 45–88. Web.
Cohen-Almagor, R. (2019). Racism and hate speech – A critique of Scanlon’s Contractual Theory. First Amendment Studies, 53(1–2), 41–66. Web.
Ehrenfreund, M. (2018). Why the IRS puts white-nationalist groups in the same category as orchestras, planetariums and zoos. The Washington Post. Web.
Herzig, D. J., & Brunson, S. D. (2017). White supremacist groups don’t deserve tax exemptions. The New York Times. Web.