To be clear: free hate speech brought us an elected government which brought war and unimaginable horrors. What helped against the Nazis was, in the end, war. German post-war law was explicitly written, strongly influenced by the UK and the US of A, to prevent this kind of populists rule.
Never again is not only a promise. It is a forever binding obligation.
I disagree. Letting people express “what’s in the darkest, ugliest corners of their soul” means letting them make threats, intimidate, incite violent acts, and so on.
Just remember: your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
Good. That’s where they belong.
I’ve always found this metaphor weird. I’m always tempted to add “… and my right to riposte starts when you become a credible threat”.
There exists absolutely no legal principle governing self-defense that states you must have been successfully hit first before you can strike back. An attempt is sufficient. The preparation of an attempt can be sufficient too.
So, if we take that into account when considering the metaphor, what does it tell us about free speech and its limits?
Oh come now, what is so hard to understand about freedom of movement being limited by the freedom to harm? Your own declaration of making a riposte is doing exactly that: preventing movement of the arm. The nose is just shorthand for personal space, nothing more.
As in so many of these cases, “why won’t they do what we mean instead of what we say!”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
