Good point. See, we donāt have free speech absolutism.
The reason we let ābad speechā be heard at least, is so if someone ever tries to ban āgood speechā they canāt. Because āgoodā and ābadā 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?
āIntolerantā, āabhorrent,ā āracistā, and āunAmericanā 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 āif we restrict the speech of Nazis while weāre in power, theyāll restrict our speech when theyāre in powerā.
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.
Iād call it a direct threat and worthy of national guard intervention, since these domestic terrorists are overruning the streets.
Citation required.
Because we donāt silence the speech we find offensive. We cheer the speech of which we approve. We need more speech, not less.
Also, this.
Iām going to bed, but if yāall 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.
Yes please.
I donāt think you and I see this situation the same way.
I see it as a lot of people publicly planning mass murder. Because thatās 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 wonāt be able to start up a genocide.
Prison maybe.
Nazism is, by definition, an open and public conspiracy to commit genocide. I think that might deserve punishment.
Thatās a wonderful theory. However, your country (presuming youāre American, apologies if not) just had a Nazi rally where someone died. Cheerful speech wonāt 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,ā¦universal healthcare?
I made a thread for this new discussion. Please have it there. Itās an important one, but Iād like it not to take over this one. Thank you 
#NotAmerican but, I thought, like most civilized society, thereās a hate exception to protected speech in the US?
Canadaās laws are not at all exemplary in this matter, but one aspect Iāve 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 āthe white folkā 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 canāt 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.
We do?
Iām 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
Iād still defend the right of the person to speak those ideas.
To be far more blunt (probably surprising no one here) Iāll go ahead and say that attempts to ban what is called āhate speechā are fig leaf efforts by dogoodniks who want to feel theyāve ādone somethingā about the problem.
Not just working to help the march go ahead; they were also heavily promoting āboth sidesā bullshit throughout. And were broadcasting fascist disinformation in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Hereās the (legally) tricky part as I understand it: if some Confederate-loving dunderheads say āwe want to hold a rally in support of this cityās historic monumentā then itās hard to deny that permit on the basis of threatening or hateful speech before theyāve actually threatened anyone.
Sorkin is the absolute apotheosis of corrupt centre-right privileged white liberalism. Heās a talented scriptwriter and propagandist, but his politics are shite.
Yeah, I agree the latter stuff especially was a major fail. I understand at least one team member in their VA chapter resigned in protest.
Sorry, but what!?!
Have you ever met America?
Opposition to the restriction of hate speech is exactly what the online āfreeze peachā debate is about. America does not have any restrictions on hate speech, precisely because of First Amendment absolutism.
Allow me to quote from the Japanese constitution
Article 21. Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed.
No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
Though some would argue differently, here and the US both do seem in my eyes to be examples of ācivilized societyā.
Whereas Iām no great fan of the Wermacht cosplay types I sometimes encounter here (shown in this old post) I understand the legality and more so the reality of the situation that though I feel offense, I am not being endangered in any way.
