Promoting freedom of association has always been a crucial part of democracy in American societies. Nowadays, this point of view has become even more critical. More and more people, to realize their opportunities or confront the institutionalized forces around them, find it necessary to unite with other people to achieve common goals. Its freedom to choose to do so is an essential element of a democratic way of life. In the meantime, the apprehension of this freedom has brought new problems. The organizations have increased in both size and strength, and organizational approaches have achieved a new level of efficiency. These associations sometimes meet stubborn resistance from other private groups or are regulated or restricted by public authorities. Certain radical private organizations are given a formal status, and this can be very hazardous for society.
Moreover, the individual who does not wish to be coerced into association has also raised problems of defining an area of personal freedom that neither government nor private organizational power can invade. No one doubts that freedom of association, as a fundamental mechanism of the democratic process, should enjoy constitutional protection and that restrictions on such fundamental freedom should be included within the framework of constitutional guarantees (Harris, 2010). The governments have in the past recognized this necessity and have addressed many aspects of associations from the perspective of constitutional law and power. However, in recent times, these issues have taken new and complex forms.
One such complex problem is the assignment of tax status to radical groups. On the one hand, the law says that all groups and associations should be given tax status freely – this follows from the law on associations and from the law on freedom of expression (Stefano, 2017). On the other hand, the question arises whether freedom of expression and association should be given to groups known to transmit negative ideas such as racism, nationalism, or xenophobia to the society. For example, the public was recently disturbed by the news that four nationalist groups were given tax status by the state and allowed to collect donations (McShane, 2016). On the one hand, the state has directly translated the letter of the law on freedom of expression and freedom of association and has made the right decision because no organization should be disadvantaged. On the other hand, it now turns out that people can safely promote the most radical and even dangerous views, enjoying even the support of the state. I think that the Internal Revenue Service, which has allowed this situation to happen, is fundamentally wrong.
Firstly, the world has moved away from the literal way of interpreting laws, where a tax authority is “the mouthpiece of the law,” without regard to the situation in which the law is applied. There are exceptions to any law, just as there are limitations to rights in some instances, such as when a person has committed a criminal offense. Of course, the formation of radical groups cannot be fully criminalized, but such groups are responsible for harassment, incitement to hatred, and propaganda campaigns against a particular group of people. For example, nationalist and racist groups incite hatred towards other nationalities or people of other races, which is also a crime. Therefore, by giving freedom of association and tax status to such groups, the state encourages crime.
Secondly, people usually use freedom of association to protect their interests, the interests of minorities, or to fight for freedom in a particular area. For example, the feminist movement that fights for women’s rights and freedom operates in the community interest. Radical groups do not fight for certain rights but against them. They fight against black people and their rights, against people of other nationalities and their rights, and even against people of other religions. Since we speak of freedom as an integral part of a democratic society, the state should not encourage groups that try to take away or violate that freedom.
Moreover, one of the risk groups to join radical organizations is young people, so with the adoption of official status, radical groups also have the opportunity to broadcast their views and attract adolescents. Due to several factors, young people are the social group most susceptible to radical nationalist and xenophobic ideas and sentiments (Aiello et al., 2018). These factors include the non-critical perception by young people of the messages of some media and other sources. Moreover, the opportunity to express nationalistic views quite openly through subcultural channels can contribute to the escalation of domestic xenophobia into a source of aggression and open racist violence. Under unfavorable socio-economic and political conditions, the subjectivity of young people can be realized in the form of youth radicalism (Miller-Idriss, 2018). Youth radical movements act as an extra-systemic opposition oriented towards implementing alternative projects to the existing social and political order models.
Radical thinking and behavior are characterized by maximalism, nihilism, a wide range of fluctuations in attitudes and actions between extremes, and an orientation towards the primacy of force methods in achieving social and political goals. The radical type of consciousness and behavior is determined and provoked by the specifics of society itself and the socio-political processes taking place. This is another reason why it is important not to encourage radical organizations but to limit the freedom of association in specific cases where it may harm the life, health, and freedom of others. Specifically, those groups discussed in the article should not have been given legal tax status and allowed to operate freely.
Some may disagree with my arguments because, after all, the law on freedom of speech is above all, and we cannot disregard it. However, the ideas I put forward in this essay are not “just words,” as I am basing them on the specific letter of the law. I am making that our constitution clearly defines a hierarchy of rights and freedoms to resolve such situations. Namely, the boundaries of the fulfillment of our rights end where the boundaries of exercise of other people’s rights begin. Radical groups do not just use freedom of speech to express their personal opinions. They use this right to propagate their views, spread influence on others, and incite harassment against certain social classes. Therefore, it appears that radical groups are using their rights to infringe on the rights of others, and such behavior is not encouraged by the law. This assertion is the primary and fundamental argument in the debate on this topic – radical groups should not use freedom of association to harm other people potentially. It means that such groups should never be given legal tax status.
References
Aiello, E., Puigvert, L., & Schubert, T. (2018). Preventing violent radicalization of youth through dialogic evidence-based policies. International Sociology, 33(4), 435-453. Web.
Harris, S. (2010). Science can answer moral questions [Video]. YouTube.
McShane, L. (2016). Four white nationalist groups given nonprofit status permission to raise nearly $8M in tax-deductible donations. Daily News. Web.
Miller-Idriss, S. (2018). Youth and the radical right. In J. Rydgren, (Ed.), The oxford handbook of the radical right (pp. 348-359). Oxford University Press.
Stefano, V. (2017). Non-standard work and limits on freedom of association: A human rights-based approach. Industrial Law Journal, 46(2), 185-207. Web.