The first ammendment doesn’t protect death threats. What should we call it when a bunch of people show up screaming about how they want to wipe out other races?
Could you elaborate on why protecting the free speech of Nazis is a good thing? Because again with the absolutism - not a good thing.
I am aware of your history. It is not a good thing. YMMV.
The First Amendment did not protect abolitionist publishers in the antebellum South. It did not protect emancipated Americans during Reconstruction. It did not protect anti-conscription campaigners during WWI. It did not protect union organisers in the 1930’s. It did not protect Japanese-Americans during WWII. It did not protect civil rights workers in the Jim Crow South. It did not protect socialists during McCarthyism. It did not protect Gay Rights campaigners in the 1970’s. It did not protect whistleblowers during Bush and Obama. It is not protecting you now.
Rights on paper are only worth the paper they’re printed on. You can’t restrain fascists with laws after they’re in power. You need to stop them from gaining power to begin with.
Good point. See, we don’t have free speech absolutism.
The reason we let “bad speech” be heard at least, is so if someone ever tries to ban “good speech” they can’t. Because “good” and “bad” is subjective. Imagine how much worse McCarthyism would e if it could have silenced people worse than it did? Imagine if Trump had powers like the President in Turkey to silence critics?
“Intolerant”, “abhorrent,” “racist”, and “unAmerican” are four adjectives that immediately come to mind, but feel free to use your own.
I believe it to be based on the idea of “if we restrict the speech of Nazis while we’re in power, they’ll restrict our speech when they’re in power”.
Guess what? Empowered Nazis are going to restrict your speech no matter what you do. If you want to avoid that, you have to avoid giving power to Nazis.
Triangulation is dead: what does "socialism" mean in the 21st century?
Federal judge: Lawsuit against Andrew Anglin of 'Daily Stormer' can proceed, Nazi hate speech isn't protected
I’d call it a direct threat and worthy of national guard intervention, since these domestic terrorists are overruning the streets.
Because we don’t silence the speech we find offensive. We cheer the speech of which we approve. We need more speech, not less.
I’m going to bed, but if y’all want to debate the pros and cons of protected speech, I suggest splitting the thread to a new one. Given my experience derailing things, it will probably be appreciated.
I don’t think you and I see this situation the same way.
I see it as a lot of people publicly planning mass murder. Because that’s exactly what happens every single time fascists are allowed to participate in public.
You seem to view it as some kind of valid exchange of ideas.
I, personally, believe that people loudly planning to murder a whole race or even multiple races, should be rounded up and put some place where they won’t be able to start up a genocide.
Nazism is, by definition, an open and public conspiracy to commit genocide. I think that might deserve punishment.
That’s a wonderful theory. However, your country (presuming you’re American, apologies if not) just had a Nazi rally where someone died. Cheerful speech won’t bring her back to life.
Most other first world countries draw the line at protecting the right to promote fucking genocide.
But but, if you stop one side from advocating genocide, next thing you know, the other side will be stopped from advocating um,…universal healthcare?
I made a thread for this new discussion. Please have it there. It’s an important one, but I’d like it not to take over this one. Thank you
#NotAmerican but, I thought, like most civilized society, there’s a hate exception to protected speech in the US?
Canada’s laws are not at all exemplary in this matter, but one aspect I’ve always been proud of is that hate/prejudicial speech is NOT protected, nor is any information about potential harm (think spousal/religious/legal/professional privilege).
IMHO, If someone wants to espouse that they believe “the white folk” deserve a homeland, hell, protest for it, fine by me. misguided and frankly entirely failing to see the global big picture, but whatever.
When that same group advocates harm to other groups, I can’t imagine why you would want that to be a protected class of speech, and I hope such statements are not protected, even in the US.
I’m completely in agreement with @M_Dub above in regards to not silencing that which offends some. There is no right not to be offended. What bugs me about the entire idea of hate speech is it ultimately does boil down to attempting to limit unfashionable expressions. In fact those who express unfashionable ideas quickly adapt to finding new ways to say the same thing which somehow are magically acceptable.
Even were I not someone who
- is part of a group targeted by offensive speech
- someone who has been personally targeted by offensive speech
I’d still defend the right of the person to speak those ideas.
To be far more blunt (probably surprising no one here) I’ll go ahead and say that attempts to ban what is called “hate speech” are fig leaf efforts by dogoodniks who want to feel they’ve “done something” about the problem.
Not just working to help the march go ahead; they were also heavily promoting “both sides” bullshit throughout. And were broadcasting fascist disinformation in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Here’s the (legally) tricky part as I understand it: if some Confederate-loving dunderheads say “we want to hold a rally in support of this city’s historic monument” then it’s hard to deny that permit on the basis of threatening or hateful speech before they’ve actually threatened anyone.
Sorkin is the absolute apotheosis of corrupt centre-right privileged white liberalism. He’s a talented scriptwriter and propagandist, but his politics are shite.