• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why do Nazis get free speech apologetics while BLM gets finger wags?

M

Matt

Member
Not said:
So should the conversation be whether to permit implied violence depending on how much visible support it acquires?
Click to expand...
Well again, constitutionally, implied violence is protected. If they were using this speech to make plans and encourage specific action, that wouldn’t be ok.

“The world would be better off without all Jews.” Deplorable, but protected.

“Let’s leave here right now and go kill Steve the Jew who lives down the street. Come on!” Not protected.
 
L

Lowmelody

Member
CornBurrito said:
r8oo00dvlhiz.jpg



People opposing BLM today would have been saying the same exact stuff about MLK. It's sad.
Click to expand...

It just couldn't be clearer. Come on fellow white people, it's time to catch up.
 
C

ChainedMaster

Banned
Crossing Eden said:
Being a nazi isn't a constitutional right. Nazism is a direct call for violence, which according to the constitution, isn't protected:



So once again, being a nazi isn't an exercise of free speech.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Even the ACLU fought for such groups and the courts agreed, it is a constitutional right.

https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history

One of the most noted moments in the ACLU's history occurred in 1978 when the ACLU defended a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU persuaded a federal court to strike down three ordinances that placed significant restrictions on the Nazis' First Amendment right to march and express their views. The decision to take the case was a demonstration of the ACLU's commitment to the principle that constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone. Many now consider this one of the ACLU's finest hours.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the idea that it isn't.
 
S

Slayven

Member
I feel like it is even a trap that we go to talk about nazis in the same breath as BLM.

Like their messages are even in the same reality.

Man the game is rigged
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Slayven said:
I feel like it is even a trap that we go to talk about nazis in the same breath as BLM.

Like their messages are even in the same reality.

Man the game is rigged
Click to expand...

It really shows the state of America when "cops should not casually kill black people" and "we should ethnically cleanse America" are considered positions equidistant from the mainstream.
 
S

Slayven

Member
pigeon said:
It really shows the state of America when "cops should not casually kill black people" and "we should ethnically cleanse America" are considered positions equidistant from the mainstream.
Click to expand...

And it is blatant no other cause really deals with that. The idea of valuing black lives is so alien and inconceivable to so many
 
Woo-Fu

Woo-Fu

Banned
I wish people who don't understand what free speech means in the first place would stop making threads that reference it, and/or reference other people using the term incorrectly.
 
C

ChainedMaster

Banned
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
Are we honestly trying to suggest the ACLU and those who support them are nazi sympathizers?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that there's nothing noble about mindless defense of free speech no matter what. For people to consider an example of that the ACLU's finest hour shows they value the idea of absolute free speech much more than any intelligent application of that idea, even more so than actual human lives and dignity.
 
S

Slayven

Member
KHarvey16 said:
Are we honestly trying to suggest the ACLU and those who support them are nazi sympathizers?
Click to expand...

No but they shouldn't be put on a pedestal for being nonobjective in who they support..

Massive Duck said:
I'm saying that there's nothing noble about mindless defense of free speech no matter what. For people to consider an example of that the ACLU's finest hour shows they value the idea of absolute free speech much more than any intelligent application of that idea, even more so than actual human lives and dignity.
Click to expand...

This, ACLU treats it as a thought as experiment. But they are there around for the real world effects. Like human experimentation but without the ethnics of the medical field.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Massive Duck said:
I'm saying that there's nothing noble about mindless defense of free speech no matter what. For people to consider an example of that the ACLU's finest hour shows they value the idea of absolute free speech much more than any intelligent application of that idea, even more so than actual human lives and dignity.
Click to expand...

Those words were written by the ACLU themselves.

And why do you think it's mindless? The ACLU's principles are clearly articulated.
 
C

ChainedMaster

Banned
Massive Duck said:
I'm saying that there's nothing noble about mindless defense of free speech no matter what. For people to consider an example of that the ACLU's finest hour shows they value the idea of absolute free speech much more than any intelligent application of that idea, even more so than actual human lives and dignity.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone actually thinks that was the best thing the ACLU did. By "finest hour" it seems the ACLU is merely pointing out their unwavering support of first amendment violations.
 
S

Slayven

Member
KHarvey16 said:
Those words were written by the ACLU themselves.

And why do you think it's mindless? The ACLU's principles are clearly articulated.
Click to expand...

ChainedMaster said:
I don't think anyone actually thinks that was the best thing the ACLU did. By "finest hour" it seems the ACLU is merely pointing out their unwavering support of first amendment violations.
Click to expand...

We know they value the idea of an document written when most of the current population of this country wouldn't have any rights or personhood under the law. Over the lives of many of the citizens.

We get that


we just saying that is neither impressive or brave stance
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Slayven said:
We know they value the idea of an document written when most of the current population of this country wouldn't have any rights or personhood under the law. Over the lives of many of the citizens.

We get that


we just saying that is neither impressive or brave stance
Click to expand...

And you also seem to be saying those that do find it to be impressive support nazis and bigotry.
 
M

Massive Duck. C.M.

Banned
KHarvey16 said:
Those words were written by the ACLU themselves.

And why do you think it's mindless? The ACLU's principles are clearly articulated.
Click to expand...

Look, you're never going to convince me that hate speech should be defended, and I'm never going to convince you that it shouldn't be. I see it as much more of a danger than you and many others, and I think that perspective comes partially from the circumstances of my existence and those of many I know and love.

I'm going to go do something enjoyable.
 
K

KHarvey16

Member
Massive Duck said:
Look, you're never going to convince me that hate speech should be defended, and I'm never going to convince you that it shouldn't be. I see it as much more of a danger than you and many others, and I think that perspective comes partially from the circumstances of my existence and those of many I know and love.

I'm going to go do something enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Well just know that we don't disagree on the importance of protecting that existence, of both you and yours, but just the best methods to do it. The goals are the same.

Slayven said:
I can only go on with the current track record. Those types ride hard for some Milo, but strangely silent or dismissive on other issues
Click to expand...

"Those types" meaning the many millions of liberals who support the ACLU?

Isn't it ok to just disagree on this without one side or the other having to be a bad person?
 
D

D i Z

Member
Some people are really hoping that fascism and Nazi's become an actual political option simply because they are afraid of being forced to empathize with others. Shit is crazy how fast people flipped.
Nazi's are not the champions of free speech. They are the opposite. If you aren't supporting fascist ideology, you aren't a fascist and shouldn't be getting your back up about the war on fascism.
If you do support it then what you are is clear and there is no line stepping to be in one day, and out the next.
I can't believe that we have to go through the ABC's of what is and isn't about fucking Nazi's.
 
S

Slayven

Member
KHarvey16 said:
Well just know that we don't disagree on the importance of protecting that existence, of both you and yours, but just the best methods to do it. The goals are the same.



"Those types" meaning the many millions of liberals who support the ACLU?

Isn't it ok to just disagree on this without one side or the other having to be a bad person?
Click to expand...

The last year proved, well more so then usual, PoCs have to watch liberals just as close rightwingers.

But yeah disagree to disagree
 
D

D i Z

Member
shintoki said:
We can wear black power and rainbows pretty easily.

Something about the other just seems off.... for some reason... can't quite put my finger on it.
Click to expand...

So much to be said when that statement exists solely for the intent to put fascism on the table as a legitimate ideology, not to have it co-exist with others as the statement so disingenuously suggests.
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
ChainedMaster said:
It absolutely is. Even the ACLU fought for such groups and the courts agreed, it is a constitutional right.

https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history



I don't know where you get the idea that it isn't.
Click to expand...
So basically the ACLU allowed targeted harassment and now nazism is a constitutional right?

KHarvey16 said:
Are we honestly trying to suggest the ACLU and those who support them are nazi sympathizers?
Click to expand...
Nazis marching through a town of holocaust survivors is basically the ACLU allowing targeted harassment. How is that not morally fucked?

joe2187 said:
#WhitePeopleThoughts

DKK_njPUMAEzr94.jpg
Click to expand...
This is Ian Miles Cheong levels of stupid.
 
M

Matt

Member
Crossing Eden said:
So basically the ACLU allowed targeted harassment and now nazism is a constitutional right?
Click to expand...
Believing in Nazism and the ability to communicate that belief IS a constitutional right. I don’t know what you are basing your assertions otherwise of off.
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Matt said:
Believing in Nazism and the ability to communicate that belief IS a constitutional right. I don’t know what you are basing your assertions otherwise of off.
Click to expand...
It means that constitutional rights are inherently contradictory. We literally JUST had an event showing off why just "communicating" those ideas is inherently violent. Yet due to our absolutely outdated views on hate speech laws they allow that shit.
 
S

Slayven

Member
Matt said:
Believing in Nazism and the ability to communicate that belief IS a constitutional right. I don’t know what you are basing your assertions otherwise of off.
Click to expand...

I mean they fought for the right of nazis to terrorize people.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
 
M

Matt

Member
Crossing Eden said:
It means that constitutional rights are inherently contradictory. We literally JUST had an event showing off why just "communicating" those ideas is inherently violent. Yet due to our absolutely outdated views on hate speech laws they allow that shit.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what the contradiction is. The Constitution does not prevent communicating violent ideas. Just the direct call to an immediate violent action.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Matt said:
I'm not sure what the contradiction is. The Constitution does not prevent communicating violent ideas. Just the direct call to an immediate violent action.
Click to expand...

To be clear, this is the most current Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Other interpretations have existed in America previous to it, which were equally consistent with the Constitution. Imminence, specifically, was new to Brandenburg.
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Matt said:
I'm not sure what the contradiction is. The Constitution does not prevent communicating violent ideas. Just the direct call to an immediate violent action.
Click to expand...
Which nazism considering the history of it should be considered as. There's nothing else to that movement BUT a long waiting game until they have enough power to redo what they did before. It's straight up shameful of the U.S. to allow it.
 
M

Matt

Member
pigeon said:
To be clear, this is the most current Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Other interpretations have existed in America previous to it, which were equally consistent with the Constitution. Imminence, specifically, was new to Brandenburg.
Click to expand...
The current Supreme Court rulings defines what is Constitutional.
 
M

Matt

Member
Crossing Eden said:
Which nazism considering the history of it should be considered as. There's nothing else to that movement BUT a long waiting game until they have enough power to redo what they did before. It's straight up shameful of the U.S. to allow it.
Click to expand...
But...why? Nazism is abhorrent and everything of course, but nothing about it turns general ideas of hate into specific actions inherently. There is still a big difference between “this would be good” and “this is the plan, let’s go do this right now.”
 
G

GhostTrick

Banned
joe2187 said:
#WhitePeopleThoughts

DKK_njPUMAEzr94.jpg
Click to expand...


Eh, such a world would be possible if the group wearing swatiska wouldnt explicitely want to kill the two other groups.

Maybe, just maybe this isn't about "ideas" or "sides" but one group asking for deaths of the others and two groups asking to be accepted equally.

Eh but what do I know :p
 
C

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Matt said:
But...why? Nazism is abhorrent and everything of course, but nothing about it turns general ideas of hate into specific actions inherently. There is still a big difference between ”this would be good" and ”this is the plan, let's go do this right now."
Click to expand...
I absolutely disagree with the idea that nazis don't have any specific larger goals in mind. Especially considering how they're becoming increasingly organized in the U.S., it's past the point of "this would be good." It was past that point where they decided to call themselves that in the first place.
 
G

GhostTrick

Banned
Matt said:
I’m not sure what the contradiction is. The Constitution does not prevent communicating violent ideas. Just the direct call to an immediate violent action.
Click to expand...



What's the difference between "Death to these people" and "Death to these people, now !".
Cause I sure don't see it.
 
M

Matt

Member
Crossing Eden said:
I absolutely disagree with the idea that nazis don't have any specific larger goals in mind. Especially considering how they're becoming increasingly organized in the U.S., it's past the point of "this would be good." It was past that point where they decided to call themselves that in the first place.
Click to expand...
Their “larger goals” aren’t germane to the discussion. What they have in mind doesn’t change what they have the right to communicate.
 
M

Matt

Member
GhostTrick said:
Which is a dumb distinction since the former automatically imply the latter. People dont say "Death to people" with no intention.
Click to expand...
Intention in a theoretical sense isn’t the same as intention to commit imminent harm.

Basically it’s the difference between wanting to kill your boss, and putting a functional plan in place for it to happen.
 
R

ReplacementPelican

Member
CornBurrito said:
Meanwhile BLM protesting by shutting down a freeway, is worthy of death by car. And even so called liberals will talk about how they understand BLM's frustrations, but how blocking a highway simply isn't right.
Click to expand...
Apparently to white Americans traffic delays are more of an inconvenience than promoting the murder of minorities. Who'd have thunk.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Matt said:
The current Supreme Court rulings defines what is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

This is a very papist understanding of the Supreme Court.

Did the text of the Constitution change on June 8th, 1969? Or did our agreed-upon interpretation of that document change? Or, even, did our legal structure, as inspired by particular values we ascribe, for our own purposes, to that document change?

My main point here is simply that assertions about what the Constitution says or does are problematic because of the implication of eternal continuity. There are people alive today who lived in an America where it was perfectly constitutional to ban white supremacists from holding rallies and declaring their intention to murder people of color, and constitutional to arrest and imprison them for doing so. There is no particular reason to consider that America somehow less American.

So simply asserting that "the Constitution lets them do it" is not a real argument. You should explain why it's good that the Constitution lets them do it and why we shouldn't agitate for another change in America's understanding of the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Why do JonTron & others get the Free Speech defense, but Phil Fish didn't?
24
4K
ModBot replied
Top Bottom