Introduction
Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of association are important values in American democracy, and in recent years, these views have become even more critical in society. Today, Americans are increasingly uniting with each other based on common thoughts to realize their shared ideas better and speak out against the institutionalized forces around them. It becomes essential that each person can express their point of view and discover the possibilities based on it. These freedoms of choice of self-expression are the basis of the demographics of American society, and although they are an essential element, they have also brought new problems. Today, the question of the abuse of freedom of speech and self-expression and its state support is increasingly being raised.
Absolute freedom inevitably leads to the fact that its subjects, using their powers, intrude into the sphere of powers of other persons, thereby violating their subjective rights. Thus, the abuse of the right violates the general principle of equality of subjects of legal relations (De Cremer & Vandekerckhove, 2016). At the same time, the complexity of establishing the wrongfulness of the actions of individual subjects lies in the fact that abuse cannot be recognized as an offense in its classical form, in which the subject violates specific prohibitive law norms. When the right is abused, the subject acts based on empowering norms, as a rule of generally permissive content, which is typical for abusing freedom of speech.
The freedom of association and expression of their word has constitutional protection, supported and encouraged by the state. As a way of expressing a demographic society, freedom of association is one of the fundamental freedoms. Therefore, it has protection but, at the same time, restrictions, which are also reflected in the constitutional environment (Harris, 2010). Previously, the question was raised about the need for more specific limits within the law and power to consider that freedom of association and freedom of speech encompass distinct elements and can be used to spread hatred (Enarsson & Lindgren, 2018). Today, these issues still have their relevance, but more and more new, more complex aspects and ethical difficulties, which also need to be considered, appear more and more often.
White-Nationalist Case
To date, one of the most discussed topics is the assignment of tax status to radical groups. Under the laws of freedom of association and freedom of speech, any groups and associations are eligible for tax status (Publication 557, n.d.). In this regard, there is a dispute about what should be limited freedom of speech and association to organizations that gather to spread in society such negative ideas as racism, nationalism, and propaganda. One example of such organizations that received government support through tax status confirmation was four white nationalist groups that spread the message of racism (McShane, 2018). Society is alarmed that the state allowed them to collect donations and funds for their growth and development.
On the one hand, this is a correct decision by the authorities since they supported the US law on freedom of association and freedom of speech, according to which no one should be infringed, even seemingly radical groups. On the other hand, the dilemma arises as to whether anyone, with the support of the state, can promote radical and dangerous ideas that affect not only those involved in the organization but the whole society.
Legal Support of Non-Profit Organizations
Racism and racial segregation have been among the main issues of American society for many centuries and, in recent years, have not lost their relevance as a subject of moral debate. According to the article, four racist white nationalist groups have received permission to collect tax-free donations totaling nearly $8 million over the past ten years (McShane, 2018). Under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows such groups to be exempt from taxes (Exemption requirements, n.d.). In addition, organizations designated as non-profit organizations under section 501(c)(3) are eligible for additional government grants in the form of tax-free contributions according to section 26 USC §170 (26 US Code § 170, n.d.). The tax deduction offers what amounts to matching funds from the government.
If an organization meets the essential requirements of section 501(c)(3), then the organization is considered a charitable organization acting solely in the public interest. At the same time, these groups cannot act in the political agenda and affect legislation (Exemption requirements, n.d.). However, from a moral point of view, all like-minded white-nationalist associations can be considered hate groups promoting racist ideas. Thus, the problem of freedom of association and freedom of speech has different aspects and does not have a specific solution set of components.
One of the most important directions of the state’s domestic policy is ensuring the peaceful coexistence of people who hold different views on the same issues and defend one or other conflicting ideas. To create conditions that ensure a constructive dialogue between representatives of different positions on various issues, as well as conditions designed to prevent manifestations of aggression against any social groups and ensure mutual respect for participants in public relations, the state is authorized to take measures aimed at restricting the principle of freedom of speech.
Against Conventional Morality
The manifestation of any beliefs that a person holds, unless such beliefs are based on ideas of hatred against a particular social group, in any case, is possible in a way that will not offend those who support other ideas. In general, the state’s actions in the above context aim to create obstacles to the emergence of social contradictions and their constant aggravation. At the same time, the state’s task is also to prevent disproportionate and excessive restrictions on freedom of speech and, ultimately, to find a balance between the freedom of speech of some citizens and the freedoms of others.
The four groups identified in the article do not influence politics; their propaganda is not politically oriented, allowing them to comply with the tax code requirements and receive permission for charitable collections. At the same time, white nationalist groups actively supported Trump’s rise to power, seeing his campaign as an essential event for those who oppose immigration and multiculturalism (McShane, 2018). Since organizations declare their political passivity, they are permissible from the perspective of the law. At the moment, it remains to be considered only from the point of view of social and moral beliefs and values, who, as a result of freedom of thought and speech, are entitled to subjectivity and distinction from the majority.
Possible Denial of Support: Compliance with Formalities
The state and politicians must act per the Constitution and adhere to the laws in force in the country. For this reason, IRS officials emphasize that they comply with the basic provisions enacted in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. They do not make status decisions based on whether an organization’s views are morally acceptable (The Truth, n.d.). However, many believe the government should not subsidize organizations that promote a view contrary to most Americans (McShane, 2018). In this case, the tax status is the guarantor of the spread of immoral ideas and contributes to the spread of hatred (The Truth, n.d.). Thus, on the one hand, for many, the official permission for the existence of white nationalist groups is wrong. However, respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms is still controversial.
Within the legislation framework, it is impossible to distinguish between correct and false values, which is the main difficulty. The argument supporting the right choice on the part of the state is that if some organizations that oppose certain groups are banned, and others are supported, this is already discrimination, which is prohibited by law. In addition, those who, for example, advocate for the rights of blacks but at the same time react negatively to those who do not support them are also, to some extent, hate groups. In both cases, discrimination occurs, which is impossible on the part of the state.
First of all, this problem is connected to the fact that, at the moment, there is no single system for evaluating moral values that are legally supported. That would make it possible to define moral principles common to all, which should be supported from a political point of view. However, today, the IRS cannot deny tax credits to an organization because their opinions do not coincide with the views of others, even if this threatens to spread hatred (The Truth, n.d.). Thus, non-profit status is analogous to direct grants or positive government support, conditional on respect for the ideal of free and equal citizenship (Audi, 2007). To have a ‘more moral’ framework accepted by the majority, this must include active participation in promoting actions and legislation that discriminates against members of certain groups.
Apart from the fact that racist white nationalist groups remain out of politics, other than supporting Trump, they do not seek to spread their position. For example, denial of tax status would be possible if organizations promoted racial segregation in educational institutions. However, the groups did not use their right to free speech and freedom of association to spread their ideas but rather to find support among others who shared their point of view. Only in words do they defend racial differences among the general population, reasoning this with historical events (McShane, 2018). From a formal point of view, they not only declare their alternative opinion but do not actively disseminate their ideas. Thus, the IRS can’t deny tax credits because some people do not like their opinion.
Opinion of the Science on Different Opinions
Despite the dilemma that has arisen, which is one example of many, the modern public actively seeks to support any opinion of each individual, which, in fact, often leads to such contradictions. Harris (2010) states that each problem requires detailed consideration and, in his presentation, considers a possible solution to the problem of different moral values. The speaker says that radical ideas differ in other parts of the world, forming an uneven surface with both ethical and lows. Harris refers to this as ‘the moral landscape’ and draws attention to the peaks, which can be positive and negative (Harris, 2010). At the same time, what one perceives as a morally negative peak for another is a positive outlook on life.
The perception of radicalism and, at the same time, the interpretation of the peaks are highly dependent on the society’s culture, which underlies the development of different opinions. For example, Harris (2010) speaks of women’s rights and perceptions, which are mainly different in the West and the traditional East. He wonders why some women wear a burqa that covers their bodies in Islamic countries. In European society, the naked female body is not perceived critically and is freely displayed (Harris, 2010). Although these are two opposite opinions, they have an equal right to exist.
As stated in the paper, discrimination is the same for every point of view. Although these views may be perceived differently depending on the society, they have something in common. The central dilemma in the case of the four racist groups is that they support conflicting opinions. Harris (2010) says that, from a moral point of view, everyone understands what “human prosperity” means [00:11:45]. That is, an opinion that is immoral in the opinion of the majority may not have been supported since it undermines human well-being. In this regard, people are only obliged to respect some existing opposing ideas that have been chosen based on objective indicators that assess whether a particular position is legitimate within the framework of a person’s moral prosperity. At the same time, it is based on specific values common in a certain period and may not be relevant in the future.
Based on the preceding, the speaker points out the need for an expert opinion to know a particular society’s general moral values. Harris (2010) gives an example, emphasizing that some people or groups need more knowledge in a specific field than experts. For example, white nationalists support their statements on white biological superiority. However, this needs to be more relevant and updated. According to modern research in genetics, there are no biological differences between races except visual differences (Carlin & Kramer, 2020). Thus, support for the ideas of white nationalists is the support of false information contrary to conventional scientific opinion. It is essential to have experts who can trace morally acceptable arguments that have value for society. Otherwise, there will always be disputes when respecting any false opinion or spreading hatred.
Opinion on the Issue
The groups considered in the article that adhere to the ideas of white nationalism, as well as similar ones, should be regarded as supporters of an alternative opinion. According to the fundamental laws of freedom of speech, expression, and association, they have the right to exist and do not pose a particular threat to ‘human prosperity’ since they do not actively promote it. However, although these groups should be given the freedom to exist and the internal support of the members, they should refrain from raising money for their radical goals. Such groups may exist, but the state should not support them.
Position Defense
The opinion presented in this article may be challenged. However, it should be understood that the issue here is not about limiting human freedoms but about whether it is right for the state to support radical hate groups from a moral point of view. The essay deals with the problem based on US legal representations, referring to the country’s existing and current laws. The answer is more than just an opinion; it is a critical assessment of the material supported by additional scholarly sources.
References
26 U.S. Code § 170 – charitable, etc., contributions and gifts. Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Web.
Audi, R. (2007). Can utilitarianism be distributive? maximization and distribution as criteria in managerial decisions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), 593–611. Web.
Carlin, E., & Kramer, B. (2020). Hair, hormones, and haunting: Race as a ghost variable in polycystic ovary syndrome. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(5), 779–803. Web.
De Cremer, D., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2016). Managing unethical behavior in organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 23(3), 437–455. Web.
Enarsson, T., & Lindgren, S. (2018). Free speech or hate speech? A legal analysis of the discourse about Roma on Twitter. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 1–18. Web.
Exemption requirements – 501(c)(3) organizations. Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.-a). Web.
McShane, L. (2018). Four white nationalist groups given nonprofit status, permission to raise nearly $8m in tax-deductible donations. New York Daily News. Web.
Publication 557 (01/2023), tax-exempt status for your organization. Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.-c). Web.
The truth about frivolous tax arguments – section I (D to E). Internal Revenue Service. (n.d.-d). Web.