We are in the real world, and the real world contains opinions and thoughts and ideas and words and music and art and all sorts of other forms of speech you don’t like.
Ahem…
When one’s opinions consist of ideas like “Blacks, Jews, Gays, & Transfolks don’t have the right to even exist,” they become an antisocial detriment to civilization.
If you champion people who espouse such inhumane views of out a skewed interpretation of ‘free speech’, then you’re part of the problem.
17 Likes
Ya, fer sure. But I’m not advocating banning any of it.
I’m talking about whether say, a university administrator, should provide dangerous, nearly universally rejected forms with a legitimizing platform.
Are you saying that if an administrator is given a choice between funding and providing a campus stage for say, a talk advocating taking action against climate change, and other talks advocating white supremacy, pederasty or the assassination of the president, that administrator should give equal weight to all of them?
14 Likes
No. Supporting someone’s right to free speech does not mean supporting the content of their speech.
I doubt that any white supremacist has ever, after being shown that their arguments were untrue, has admitted that they were wrong and repented.
The main reasons for wanting to place their speakers in places like universities has been:
- To play the left into staging protests that they will frame as anti-free speech.
- Cherry pick edited debate bites and post them to YouTube as “xxxx destroys SJW yyyy”.
- Attract the curious% in a respectable setting and attempt to recruit them (“red pilling”) along a carefully gradual path to extremism.
% “I’m not a white supremacist, I’m just nazi-curious.” Narf!
Darn, jinxed.
9 Likes
but everyone else does, and collectively they’re stronger
1 Like
The first amendment doesn’t guarantee a platform to spew whatever you’d like with no consequences. It only protects against the state barring you from political speech.
17 Likes
Most of what you said is all too true.
(I don’t think it undercuts your points to acknowledge that devoted white supremacists have indeed repented, and then gone public in good ways.)
13 Likes
People can say whatever they wish; that’s support for their first amendment right.
However that right doesn’t extend to being given a public platform or a means to distribute that message, especially if the content of said message is likely to have a negative impact upon the community.
Long story short:
You have the right to feel however you feel, to hate whomever you want.
That doesn’t mean you have a right to infringe upon other citizens’ rights, or to encourage anyone else to do so. That’s what hate speech is, and that’s why it is not protected under the first amendment.
19 Likes
Ha! When I was typing, there was a little nagging “what never?” thought in the back on my head. I should have listened.
ETA: I do doubt it happened as a result of being shown wrong at a debate, and more of an “Aha!” moment like when someone realizes that they are in a controlling cult, even though they were surrounded by the evidence for years.
6 Likes
Incorrect.
As an aside, the ACLU supported the Nazis’ right to march. Does that mean the ACLU supports Nazis? No.
Yes, I’m hip to Skokie; they made a whole film about it, Sherlock.
The laws concerning hate speech are very specific, and unfortunately there are lots of ways to wiggle around them as, vermin are want to do.
I’ll ask you outright; what’s your dog in this race?
Free speech is one thing, but some people arguing so ardently to allow hate speech to slide under the same umbrella makes me question the motivation.
Where would you draw the line?
Do you think all speech is acceptable, even speech that endangers the safety and well being of others?
14 Likes
Yes, I realize that was your initial point, and that it’s a good one. I just wanted to acknowledge the many good people who have renounced their former white supremacist views and actions.
7 Likes
Change is possible, although it’s hard work, and therefore, not very common.
I’m still waiting for our new comrade who seems to support Nazis to state his or her own position on topic, instead of futilely trying to play the rational devil’s advocate.
5 Likes
If that was true, you wouldn’t claim “[First Amendment rights don’t] extend to being given a public platform or a means to distribute that message, especially if the content of said message is likely to have a negative impact upon the community.”
And now you’re claiming I support Nazis. Game over!
I claimed nothing.
I said “seems,” because that’s exactly what starting a brand new account fixated on one topic, arguing vehemently for the rights of Nazis looks like to members of the community.
If I’m wrong, then tell me what you stand for, besides a rigid interpretation of the first amendment where everything is accptable to say simply because it’s not illegal.
Hint:
THIS IS NOT A FUCKING GAME. Heather Heyer didn’t die because of any “game.”
Do you think that the driver of the car was just exercising his rights to free speech, too?
20 Likes
umm not really. It just says the government can’t throw you in jail or other bad things just for speaking out. Now if I tell you to take your hate filled ranting off my property, the community tells you to take it elsewhere, etc. That is totally permissible.
And Nazis are calling for the extermination of folk like me ( as I am one of them evil athiest sorts ) and that is a threat of violence. Fuck them. They can go have their speeches on their own property, in their own town halls but fuck all if they get to do in mine.
20 Likes
Indeed. Even the Skokie decision was pretty limited and narrow in scope, and the earlier rulings still sort of stand. The first amendment mean one can say whatever one likes. There are always limits to it. SCOTUS in its history has made limitations on speech.
12 Likes
The second amendment is like the first, except it’s for people who don’t talk so good.
2 Likes
First they came for the Nazis…
You know - that’s a self correcting problem.
15 Likes
