• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

Freedom of Speech for Nazis?

Should we allow Nazis to speak in public universities, in the public square, in the name of Free Speech?

Nazism advocates some very horrible things. Mass murder, mass ethnic cleansing. Violence and bigotry.

Could it be argued that Nazism is itself a violent ideology that falls beyond the bounds of Free Speech?

Could it be argued that the swastika itself is a violent statement?
 
If they say "we hate all these people"...ya.*

If they say "all these people must be exterminated/hunted/wiped out etc etc"...hell no.

And if they show up waving torches with body armor and rifles...I don't give a damn what they have to say, no.


*just because they have a right to speak doesn't mean they have a right to a private venue. And if they show up in a public venue, I fully encourage counter protesters.
 
Yes. Of Course...unless they turn violent in which case throw their butts in jail.
This is becoming a very dangerous trend on both sides in the US.....wanting to suppress your political foes.
 
Donal said:
If they say "we hate all these people"...ya.*

If they say "all these people must be exterminated/hunted/wiped out etc etc"...hell no.

And if they show up waving torches with body armor and rifles...I don't give a damn what they have to say, no.


*just because they have a right to speak doesn't mean they have a right to a private venue. And if they show up in a public venue, I fully encourage counter protesters.
Click to expand...

They have the right to say whatever they want.

I have the right to say that they are repugnant humans.
 
Cavemonster said:
Whew, there's a lot to address there, let me start with just one point.

I don't think your view of the history or current state of speech law is accurate.

First off, you're the second person to try to argue that obscenity law is narrow and well defined. Take a look at the Miller test:

Does that look objective to you, narrow? It all depends on what people think of the material. It's far more dependnt on popularity than any serious hate speech suggested laws.
Click to expand...
And yet, it's still narrow enough to make it very difficult to craft a law that doesn't run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

Secondly, historically we've had a lot of unprotected speech besides those three categories. Just for one example, we had blasphemy laws since the founding of the country, and they persisted and were enforced into the 20th century.
Click to expand...
That no one bothered to take such cases to the Supreme Court does not imply that blasphemy was once unprotected speech and now it's protected. The 1st Amendment makes it clear that such speech was always protected.
 
Hercules56 said:
Should we allow Nazis to speak in public universities, in the public square, in the name of Free Speech?

Nazism advocates some very horrible things. Mass murder, mass ethnic cleansing. Violence and bigotry.

Could it be argued that Nazism is itself a violent ideology that falls beyond the bounds of Free Speech?

Could it be argued that the swastika itself is a violent statement?
Click to expand...

No
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
 
Tony Stark said:
Yes. Seems to work out fine in Europe.
Click to expand...

Ha! That's rich! 'Splain us how fine it worked-out in Europe 1914-1945.

Please stop your rants. Casual observers would have a hard time distinguishing you from routine NAZIs.
 
Last edited:
Limits to the free exchange of ideas?

Discussions about whether universities should allow white supremacists to have a platform is popular these days. However, I have to ask, what about someone from NAMBLA? How many people would defend them having a platform?

Free speech advocate Milo Yiannopoulos criticized Salon publishing an article written by a pedophile. This pedophile did not try to justify relationships between adults and children but argued that the hysteria over pedophiles only makes it harder for pedophiles to come out and get the help they need, thereby putting children more at risk. Certainly that could be an interesting discussion for defenders of the free exchange of ideas.

In another twist of irony, Milo himself would be disinvited from conservative circles for his own comments. Apparently, attacking transgender people is free speech, but suggesting that 14 year olds can consent to sex with adults is crossing the line for these people.
 
dudalb said:
But who decides what is Hate Speech?
Click to expand...

Well given a choice between current living people familiar with issues like cyberbullying and a collection of country gentleman who've been dead for 200 years, I'll go with the living. The 1st Amendment keeps getting used as an excuse to duck hard choices.
 
Garrison said:
Well given a choice between current living people familiar with issues like cyberbullying and a collection of country gentleman who've been dead for 200 years, I'll go with the living. The 1st Amendment keeps getting used as an excuse to duck hard choices.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but for me Freedom of Speech is a close to an absolute as you can get. I feel the social damage done my restricting speech will be far greater then any done by any opinion that can be offered, no matter how obnoxious. I will accept some restriction on the occasion of speech, but not on the content.
And yes, when it comes to speech I firmly believe there is a "Slippery SLope."
And when they come to take away your freedom, they always have a excellent, wonderful sounding.noble reason.
On this issue I am a fervent Libertarian. Government, keep the hell out.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Sorry, but for me Freedom of Speech is a close to an absolute as you can get. I feel the social damage done my restricting speech will be far greater then any done by any opinion that can be offered, no matter how obnoxious. I will accept some restriction on the occasion of speech, but not on the content.
And yes, when it comes to speech I firmly believe there is a "Slippery SLope."
And when they come to take away your freedom, they always have a excellent, wonderful sounding.noble reason.
On this issue I am a fervent Libertarian. Government, keep the hell out.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you would be so sanguine if you were one of those having to deal with people like Matthew Mills.

But yeah these CT's right to tell people their dead children didn't exist has to be defended no matter what.
 
Jerrymander said:
Discussions about whether universities should allow white supremacists to have a platform is popular these days. However, I have to ask, what about someone from NAMBLA? How many people would defend them having a platform?

[...].
Click to expand...


No to NAMBLA. Any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom