Lauren Southern. She was banned after throwing flares and attempting to block a ship (with no refugees on board) from leaving port to pick up refugees who she believes are being trafficked into Italy with the government's assistance.
She was arrested for participation in this act of protest and then Patreon made the claim that her activities could have caused loss of life (which is ridiculous).
The alt-right is not "middle-of-the-road conservative". The alt-right is literal-not-figurative fascism with memes and, occasionally, good dress sense. If you consider white supremacists (oh, sorry, white nationalists (oh, sorry, ethno-nationalists)) to be "middle of the road conservatives," there is a profoundly deeper problem in your calculus.
I didn't say that they are middle-of-the-road conservative. The alt-right is a meaningless catch all that currently means "conservatives or nationalists with strong opinions who I disagree with". For reference, I don't belong to the alt right, and I am economically conservative, socially moderately liberal.
What makes you think that Lauren Southern is a white supremacist?
Do you think that someone should be allowed to try to impede human trafficking operations?
Do you think that in the absence of these NGO ships going out to sea that so many people would be drowning on rafts in the middle of the ocean?
Because if Lauren is right, then you are suggesting that incentivizing a life-endangering risk for the purposes of being taken in to human trafficking is an ethical action.
Most likely the association goes alt-right->white nationalism->fascism.
The most common refutation is that the alt-right is not a white nationalist movement, but that is entirely beside the point. The alt-right is absolutely a nationalist and isolationist movement. It was also certainly started by white nationalists and white supremacists, and those two groups are still fully present and influential in the greater movement.
Nationalism, race-cleansing and isolationism are not necessarily fascism although they are intimately related. There are a great number of fascists in the movement, including many who call themselves libertarians, but there are also a lot of people who are anti-authoritarian. Actual, literal fascists believe the government may take ultimate control of the economy and people to accomplish the goals of the nation, particularly in times of "emergency", which most of them believe this is. They do not believe in democracy under any circumstances, only in an umbrella of direct dictatorial control.
So, taking that all together, does the alt-right overall meet the definition of fascism? Yeah, I think so. The alt-right's mandate is to prevent jobs from leaving the country, end international trade (mercantilism, in fact), and to bar immigrants. They're a little wishy-washy on foreign intervention and have strong opinions both ways. They want these goals to be accomplished through direct action by the president- convincing or ordering corporations to hire inside the country, and ordering an end to imports. They want to ban immigration for the safety of the country and many want to additionally protect cultural homogeneity. Trumps cabinet very much recalls Mousollini's corporatism, with energy company reps in charge of the EPA and secretary of state.
Trumps whole thing is a lone wolf against the rest of the government, trying to take control and convert it to what it should be. That applies to the government, economy, and society. His alt-right supporters support that in one or more categories. To the alt-right, Trump is the only one who can restore jobs where they should be, restore the people to who they should be, and fix how people act and the expectations they have of each other. That's pretty textbook fascism.
There's a lot of confusion out there due to a relatively brief appropriation of the term "alt-right" by a political tendency that is now more commonly termed "alt-lite".
The dividing line that's emerged is "civic nationalism" (alt-lite) vs "ethnic nationalism" (alt-right)
ie: anybody can be an American provided they adopt the right values and behave as an American, vs only white people can be American and everybody who is not white (+ jews) needs to be made to leave.
Needless to say, the latter tendency is especially packed with literally textbook fascism.
Probably true. So we fight them. It stinks and it sucks, but it's on all of us to do so to the best of our ability and those of us who were dealt a more fortunate set of life's lottery balls (and I say this as an affluent, straight, white, cis American) have a duty to use our good fortune to help others.
> She was arrested for participation in this act of protest and then Patreon made the claim that her activities could have caused loss of life (which is ridiculous).
You don't get to go into other countries, break their laws, and expect private corporations to back you to the hilt. They are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your beliefs.
That isn't a reasonable expectation by any stretch of the imagination. Using the logic you are applying, you believe Patreon should be compelled to support the sales of "software" in the US even if its malware on the basis of free speech.
Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.
“it appears that you are currently raising funds in order to take part in activities that are likely to cause loss of life."
This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
> This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.
1) You are arguing now that journalists should have legal immunity.
> Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
2) She was taking actions that physically prevented other people from taking actions. That isn't literal speech and is much further from speech than software is.
> This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
3) No. This is you attempting to frame outrageous criminal acts as "politics".
1)
There is a difference between legal immunity and the ability to raise funds -- for which she was banned according to the letter.
2)
Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
3)
Ships in the water circling to pick up people certainly makes them take riskier actions, or pushes the risk threshold low enough that people are willing to try.
I personally think that an open border solution would be much better for everyone. I also think that international law is valuable, and painting this situation in which these people are actually being transported by trafficking rings for at least some portion of their trip is not as black and white as you portray it. I'm personally against a modern day work and sex slave pipeline from Africa to Europe, and there is a non-negligible chance that that's what is happening here.
> Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
Fundraising to support a non-speech activity is not purely speech. e.g., if the activity is criminal, fundraising to support it is also criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on the planet, including those with the strongest free speech protections.
This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.
Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.
> This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.
And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.
It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make
> It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make
The purpose with patreon being to fund her "journalistic activities" which included the legally dubious action.
It's... not saying that at all. There is a difference between speech and action. There is a difference between risking your own life for a cause and endangering a political opponent's life for your cause.
Who are her political opponents? The migrants? Their lives are being endangered now, once by governments (who have pulled out of S&R missions) and now by NGOs, and they are very likely being trafficked into Italy. People do not realize that the Camorra and Cosa Nostra are actual things, and that the Italian Mafia is not a joke.
You seem to think, completely without any substantiation, that Lauren Southern is disingenuous when she thinks that people are drowning on styrofoam rafts and being trafficked. You can think that you should have strict immigration laws and still care about people drowning in the ocean.
As far as I can see, she's a politically active woman in her mid 20s who has some unpopular political opinions that is being decried as a murderer for having a different assessment of the situation.
Maybe I see this through a different lense because I sail, but carelessness like this on the water, especially at night, bothers me. To me this is like prank calling 911 and calling it "civil disobedience" -- something I would equally hope Patreon wouldn't support. The politics are not what sways me here, and I would agree that they should not be a factor.
Journalistic ethics prohibit journalists from taking action for one side or another. Investigative journalists should investigate political causes, and even specifically pursue ones they believe in; but their protection as journalists relies on them being observers and not actors.
