"This is so fucking cool"

[φ of π]

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of that speech.

If the consequence of bigoted hate-speech is the loss of the privilege to spew bigoted hate-speech, then sucks to be a bigoted hate-monger.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

If even highly offensive political viewpoints are banned, they it is neither a free nor democratic society.

I don't support free speech at the expense of human dignity or the risk of human rights. If a person's speech is essentially a death threat against entire groups of people, which Nazi speech inherently is, then it should be controlled just as much as direct threats.

EDIT: If some asshole wants to talk to his friends about how Adolf Hitler had some good ideas, fine, he can go fuck himself but fine. I'm not saying we should control that. I'm saying if a guy gets up with a megaphone in Times Square and starts preaching about exterminating the Jews and killing gay people, that person should be 1. Pelted with rocks, and 2. forcibly removed from his soapbox and told to go home by some authority. And universities should certainly not invite fuckers like this to speak at their university in the name of the "marketplace of ideas." We already dealt with Nazis in the "marketplace of ideas" in the 1940s.

 

[Feron]

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of that speech.

If the consequence of bigoted hate-speech is the loss of the privilege to spew bigoted hate-speech, then sucks to be a bigoted hate-monger.

There are indeed societal consequences to bigotry and hate. That is why Hilary lost, IMHO. The electorate were repulsed and rejected the bigotry and hate of the far left and recognized that it posed an existential threat to our freedom.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

It IS okay for all for all of this to be done to Nazis. We had a war about it and everything. Maybe you heard about it?

Why would you even think of DEFENDING Nazis?

Some of this is not ok to do to Nazis in the USA as the same document that gives you your rights also gives Nazis their rights.

Defending the rights of citizens is not the same as explicitly defending Nazis. They have the same rights you do and yes, its wrong, and not ok to violate those rights. Its actually illegal, and wrong.

There are legal ways to combat nazism. Education, awareness, your rational conversation against theirs but to be frank they are so batshit crazy you're better off giving them the rope and they will just hang themselves.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

There are indeed societal consequences to bigotry and hate. That is why Hilary lost, IMHO. The electorate were repulsed and rejected the bigotry and hate of the far left and recognized that it posed an existential threat to our freedom.

Wow. Yeah I don't see this conversation going anywhere. Peace.

 

[φ of π]

Odd how what Americans call "far left" is called central by the standards of most other civilized countries.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I don't support free speech at the expense of human dignity or the risk of human rights. If a person's speech is essentially a death threat against entire groups of people, which Nazi speech inherently is, l

You don't have to support it, it is however illegal for you to assault them or intimidate them into silence. No, not all speech by nazis is a death threat,

Per the constitution, the supreme court, the ACLU, the very entities that ensure your rights, these people have the same exact rights.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

No, not all speech by nazis is a death threat,

Nazi speech is rooted in racial purity and the extermination of targeted races and cultures. Violence is implied and inherent within Nazi speech.

 

[MacLeod]

There are indeed societal consequences to bigotry and hate. That is why Hilary lost, IMHO. The electorate were repulsed and rejected the bigotry and hate of the far left and recognized that it posed an existential threat to our freedom.

I find a flaw in your reasoning, Clinton got more votes than any other candidate. But lets not turn this into a political debate as that at best belongs in Misc.

 

[Feron]

And you also don't fight Nazis by giving them a platform in a democratic society. Which is why Nazis like Richard Spencer absolutely should be allowed to be punched in his fucking face and he should never be allowed to speak his hateful bullshit in public ever again. And anyone who says that he should be given a platform because free speech is really just collaborating.

EDIT: I should clarify I'm not saying you're defending people like Richard Spencer specifically, Feron, I'm just saying that when liberals talk about quelling Nazi speech, they're talking about people like Spencer, not run of the mill Trumpists.

Tell that to folks like Milo the gay Jew Trump supporter.

Richard Spencer is detestable. And the way to defeat people like him is to let him hang himself with his own rope. You do realize, don't you, that the video where he got punched was the best gift that Neo-Nazis have gotten for recruitment in a long time? It would have been far better if he had been given full chance to speak and then booed and rebutted by regular people. Punching him before he said anything made him look like a martyr, which is not good.

 

[Ovation]

So, umm, about the cadet swearing in front of her superior officer?

 

[φ of π]

So, umm, about the cadet swearing in front of her superior officer?

I know! That was so fucking cool!

*ahem* ...sorry.

 

[ClintDagger]

So, umm, about the cadet swearing in front of her superior officer?

I vaguely remember that. Go on...

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Nazi speech is rooted in racial purity and the extermination of targeted races and cultures. Violence is implied and inherent within Nazi speech.

No,

If a group of nazis assemble and they are just saying they hate __insertgroup__ and listing all the reasons why, unless they made a threat or statement thatviolates someone elses rights, their speech is protected. There is no "implied" and if said nazi group was shut down by the state or uncle sam, the ACLU would defend them,

And if any group of citizens assaulted them or intimidated them they would be comitting a crime.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I vaguely remember that. Go on...

You both are right, really should stick to the topic,

As much as I try to say no, sometimes this just sucks me in..these conversations are just such fun excercises, hard to say no some days

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from the consequences of that speech.

If the consequence of bigoted hate-speech is the loss of the privilege to spew bigoted hate-speech, then sucks to be a bigoted hate-monger.

Freedom of speech does mean freedom from govt persecution. Sure you can be canned but yes you're protected from consequences from the govt for the most part, with few exceptions.

 

[cultcross]

Ok first there's already a thread on this and secondly this isn't an American political discussion board. We'll leave this here.