Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Meadmaker]

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

Yes.

It could also be argued that labor unions lie outside the bounds of free speech.

Or homosexuals. Or Lutherans. Or......anything really. The exact justification for banning the speech changes, but one can come up with some reason that whatever controversial speech is sufficiently dangerous that it just ought not be allowed.

Because we don't give in to those arguments, we still have free speech in America.....mostly.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

What an excellent idea.

 

[Saggy]

Because we don't give in to those arguments, we still have free speech in America.....mostly.

Perhaps you should give some thought to who is trying to suppress free speech in the west and in the US. That would be the ADL and B'nai Brith, and they've been remarkably successful in Europe, for example consider ...

"Here is part of Ireland's Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act (PICA) of 1989,

"2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,

or
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred."
Read it carefully. This law can be used to prosecute any expressed thought the government chooses."

The 1st amendment has stymied them in the US, here is an account of their struggles with it ...

Racists, Bigots and the Law on the Internet

Hate Crime Laws

 

[dudalb]

Once again, my problem is "Who decides what is hate speech and what is not?"

 

[Degeneve]

This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

This is a mistake. One needs to use every opportunity speak out against the nazi discourse and thoroughly debunk it. This does however not necessary mean that you need to enter in physical fights as this is just what they want.

If the nazi managed to get to power in Germany it's primarily because too many Germans did not listen and, worse, did not take the time to clearly answer "no!".

 

[Darat]

Yes,frankly.I don't want to give a bureaucrat the power of deciding what speech should be allowed.

Thank you.

It isn't, and never has been, about looking fondly on every exercise of garbage barfed out of the mouth of some caveman.

It's always been about denying government, which is to say, a gaggle of power hungry men people, the power to silence their opposition, the people who would stand against them.

But that's not true. You just draw the line in a different place to some other people as you both do allow "bureaucrat"s to make such determination, e.g. "fighting words".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... This thread should be about whether we ought to grant free speech rights to those people who would take away free speech rights, especially those people who might do so selectively for certain American citizens.

As a momentary aside, but germane to the general topic of absolutist Big Truth nutcakes, I would also say in the same vein that extending the freedom of religion to any sect/group/belief set that explicitly denies freedom of religion is problematic at best.

Even more broadly and fundamentally, political equality is the foundational postulate upon which the universality of rights and law rely. It might be argued that those who argue for material action to promote inequality are a poison at the root and heart of democracy itself. There is an argument to be made for prohibiting hate speech, which, at core, is an attack on equality.

(Having said that, for the Frightards, this note: see the recent animal rights thread before coming on all hot and heavy about the scope and meaning of political equality. Let's skip the dick-waving "who's racial IQ is bigger" BS, alright? Lost cause already.)

 

[Agatha]

This thread is NOT about what Nazi/neo-Nazi/alt-right ideology is (or isn't), and it's not about the causes of wars, and it's not about whether any particular group bears more or less blame for this, that or the other.

It is about whether groups which espouse hatred or separatism should be afforded platforms to speak.

Will you all ensure that you stick to the topic. If this modbox is not heeded, I will have no option but to moderate the thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Saggy]

Actually, I'm trying to avoid complaining to the mods, but I will do so if I don't see any other alternative.

The cause of WWII, the Sparticist Revolt, etc, might be interesting topics in the forums for history or conspiracy theories, but here, not so much.

Demonizing Nazis is in the west is like the air we breathe, no one notices. You can make any outrageous slur, it makes absolutely no difference if there is any connection with reality, and say it with a straight face with complete confidence that no one will object.

So, when someone does object, you scramble, you think, 'My God, this must be against the rules', I'll complain !

If you want to deny Nazis free speech, as many here do, and not only here, it's become a meme in the US itself, then you should be able to justify it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

As a momentary aside, but germane to the general topic of absolutist Big Truth nutcakes, I would also say in the same vein that extending the freedom of religion to any sect/group/belief set that explicitly denies freedom of religion is problematic at best.

Even more broadly and fundamentally, political equality is the foundational postulate upon which the universality of rights and law rely. It might be argued that those who argue for material action to promote inequality are a poison at the root and heart of democracy itself. There is an argument to be made for prohibiting hate speech, which, at core, is an attack on equality.

(Having said that, for the Frightards, this note: see the recent animal rights thread before coming on all hot and heavy about the scope and meaning of political equality. Let's skip the dick-waving "who's racial IQ is bigger" BS, alright? Lost cause already.)

These freedom of religion and speech are the ends to themselves. They are not there to produce material satisfaction. If it will lead to failure, then we must still March to that destination.

 

[Stacko]

The one thing I'll give these "free speech" rallies is that they really serve to highlight just how stupid Nazis are.

 

[Bubba]

Cherrypicked Threadfruit

by timhau
There are twi advantages to allowing morons to speak freely.

We can identify them from a distance.
By keeping the bar low, we can be sure that no reasonable views get censored.

by Hlafordlaes
Agreed. Especially wrt public speaking engagements by any extremist, which are better boycotted or peacefully picketed than prohibited.

by acbytesla

This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

by Meadmaker

I think the answer is that by doing so, (accommodating anti-constitutional movements), we preserve the constitution. We still have our freedoms. None of those anti-constitutional movements have ever caught on, and they won't as long as we give them freedom.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

by Meadmaker
What an excellent idea.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Could it be argued that Nazism is itself a violent ideology that falls beyond the bounds of Free Speech?

by Meadmaker

Yes.

It could also be argued that labor unions lie outside the bounds of free speech.

Or homosexuals. Or Lutherans. Or......anything really. The exact justification for banning the speech changes, but one can come up with some reason that whatever controversial speech is sufficiently dangerous that it just ought not be allowed.

Because we don't give in to those arguments, we still have free speech in America.....mostly.

by Meadmaker
I would also say in the same vein that extending the freedom of religion to any sect/group/belief set that explicitly denies freedom of religion is problematic at best.

What if a religion is inherently a form of government with its own laws whose ideology would do away with and replace its host government ?




.

 

[uke2se]

This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

This doesn't work, period.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Cherrypicked Threadfruit


What if a religion is inherently a form of government with its own laws whose ideology would do away with and replace its host government ?


.

You should have the freedom to advocate it and run for political office with those goals.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This doesn't work, period.

It certainly does.i didn't even know about the Boston rally today. Ignore successful.

 

[xjx388]

We should keep this in perspective: only a few hundred ws/nn showed up to this thing. The event was planned for months and that's all they got. We aren't talking about a large movement here if they can't even get more than a few hundred to show.

Ignoring not only works, it's been working for decades.

 

[acbytesla]

This doesn't work, period.

I think it works much better than you are saying. I agree it doesn't always work. I'm a huge believer in deflection, charm and disarm or turning around and avoiding conflict. (When you can) These guys get a 2 hour permit. Don't give them the conflict that gets them on the news. Marginalize them. It's a bunch of idiots talking to themselves.

I hated the liberal idiots who had to protest a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at University of California. I think Milo is an idiot who would have had maybe a hundred people should up to hear him if that. Instead it turned this nobody into somebody.

I'll never forget when Married with Children first aired on TV. The show had almost no audience and was endanger of being canceled. That was ntil some Christian woman blew a gasket about the 'filth' on that show. She threatened advertisers with a boycott and a couple pulled their ads. But it was the best thing that could have happened Everyone tuned in to see what the fuss was about.

Conflict sells. Without it, people get bored.

 

[uke2se]

We should keep this in perspective: only a few hundred ws/nn showed up to this thing. The event was planned for months and that's all they got. We aren't talking about a large movement here if they can't even get more than a few hundred to show.

Ignoring not only works, it's been working for decades.

Ignoring them hasn't worked. Direct response whenever they show their ugly heads has.

There have always been counter demonstrations to KKK rallies and the like. It's a show of force against them as much as it is a show of solidarity to the groups in society they want to get rid of. It's imperative that this continues. White supremacist ideology and Nazi ideology thrives and festers in obscurity, and then pops into the light in force. We saw an example of this in Charlottesville. They were highly organized and armed to the teeth. Anonymity on the internet gives them ample recruitment opportunities, as does the Trump administration and its policies. Polls have shown that their ideas have support among Trump voters.

 

[uke2se]

I think it works much better than you are saying. I agree it doesn't always work. I'm a huge believer in deflection, charm and disarm or turning around and avoiding conflict. (When you can) These guys get a 2 hour permit. Don't give them the conflict that gets them on the news. Marginalize them. It's a bunch of idiots talking to themselves.

After the confrontation in Charlottesville, tech companies are cracking down on hate sites, massive crowds show up to march against racism in Boston and the entire country, and much of the Western world are talking about the importance to stand up to bigotry.

This did not come about by letting the Nazis have their rally in peace. It came about by confronting them and allowing them to show what kind of despicable people they are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

How does one define a strategy as working in this scenario?