Support NeoGAF

[Resident_UA]

There were a lot of discussions about Nazis and Trump in the past few days, but one topic that I feel is really overlooked is freedom of speech. I despise these terrorists that invaded Charlottesville but I also feel that freedom of speech is the greatest thing that America has going for it. And honestly I don't know how to reconcile these things... Does it mean that freedom of speech only works if there's someone at the top to check America's moral compass? Is Trump actually the problem vs just being a symptom?

I know there's a chance that some will feel that this thread is pointless, but this is something I've been struggling with for a while. There's very similar issue in Ukraine (where I was born). Ukrainian government banned pretty much all Russian media (for very good reasons), but I still have mixed feelings about it.

Is there a way to fight bigotry and propaganda in free speech society?


EDIT:

Hate Speech is not Freedom of Speech

I get this. But the question becomes, where do you draw the line. Should we arrest some asshole who really likes Nazi flag because he read some crazy conspiracy theory and marches with it in Charlottesville? (And just to be clear, I'm actually leaning towards "Yes" on this question vs whatever insane shit Trump said yesterday about "both sides")

 

[Magwik]

Yes, there are many ways. As a society it's very easy to shut down and shame those who act or talk this way. However that requires everyone to play ball and put them in their place, which is something the republicans will never do.

So we have to do our best to say "this isn't okay" and push them back to their mothers basements.

 

[Xando]

Is there a way to fight bigotry and propaganda in free speech society?

Works pretty well in germany.

 

[Viewt]

Germany seems to be doing fine despite taking a hardline stance against Nazi-fueled speech and symbols. I don't see why we couldn't do something similar with our own right-wing fascists. That doesn't mean there's an easy rule/law to implement, but surely we can improve the status quo.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Freedom of Speech doesnt protect against violent inciting hate speech

Its one thing to debate and express unpopular views and opinions

Its another to be a Nazi

 

[Nokterian]

This will answer your question.

 

[Trace]

Canada has laws specifically against hate speech. America could use that but then you have the MUH FREEDOMS people showing up defending Nazis.

 

[Ozigizo]

Turns out, we have yet to see a "slippery slope" when it comes to restricting hate speech.

 

[Buzzman]

There are many countries in the world that have similar freedoms of speech without allowing vile rhetoric like that.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

fuck nazis and their free speech

 

[BlackSalad]

Classify Nazis/KKK/white supremacists as a terrorist organizations

problem solved.

 

[obin_gam]

Hate Speech is not Freedom of Speech

 

[RobertRaviolli]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

 

[Breads]

Freedom of speech as an absolute (which we already don't have) is fucking stupid. Im tired of the slippery slope arguement. It always benifits nazi bullshit the most.

 

[geestack]

you realize the nazis and white supremacists would get rid of freedom of speech instantly right

 

[iyox]

This will answer your question.

Unfortunately, the issue is the ACLU argued in favor of the rally. So the logic doesn't really hold given the outcome of that.

 

[Cake Boss]

It's not free speech if their speech wishes to disavow anybody that doesn't looks like them their right to free speech.

It's hate speech, not free speech.

 

[Resident_UA]

Works pretty well in germany.

I feel weird about Germany banning books too. But I can't deny that it seems to have a good balance. I bet Russia invested insane amount of money into propaganda specifically targeting Germany.

 

[Zap Rowsdower]

Turns out, we have yet to see a "slippery slope" when it comes to restricting hate speech.

We have seen the slippery slope for defending it though, it's happening right now.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

It's a human right, but,

 

[Azoor]

The government should not curate speech, but there should be a legislation that if someone verbally attacked me on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation etc I should be able to sue them or at least punish them in one way or another.

 

[Mr. Poolman]

I thought that free speech was restricted to human beings, not monsters.

 

[Dynasty]

We dont really have pure freedom of speech. If that Nazi rally was a ISIS rally it would have been shutdown immedietly. As a society we have outlawed certain things because the harm they cause is to great but for some reason the US thinks Nazi speech isnt on the same level as ISIS.

 

[Auto_aim1]

"I hate you because of race/skin/whatever" is not freedom of speech. It's a hate speech and needs to be shut down very quickly. There's a reason so many people were quick to condemn it and are terrified of Trump's statements. History literally shows you the consequences of letting this go on without any resistance.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

Reasonable countries have exceptions to freedom of speech for hate speech.

 

[siddx]

Freedom of speech only protects you from the government. Not private businesses or institutions and people. It also doesn't protect you if you are inciting violence. Which is what a nazi is doing every single time he or she opens their fucking mouth.

 

[JustenP88]

Hate Speech is not Freedom of Speech

That. Maintaining a rigid "anything goes" stance on free speech is as dumb as giving a gun to a toddler.

If the law is not going to handle hordes of morons roaming the streets shouting "Jews will not replace us" then someone needs to handle it outside of the law. Violence is the bedrock of this ideology.

 

[RM8]

Canada has laws specifically against hate speech. America could use that but then you have the MUH FREEDOMS people showing up defending Nazis.

It's just incredible that some people think free speech only exists in America as opposed to the tons of countries that have hate speech laws, lol.

 

[Westbahnhof]

I live in Austria, where one cannot legally be a nazi or deny the holocaust.
These are freedoms which are not needed, and we haven't slipped down this slope yet.

I think freedom to do a thing is not inherently good. It depends on the thing.
Owning a literal flame thrower for self defense, being a nazi, denying the holocaust: These are freedoms which should be taken away in my opinion.
Just like the freedom to access certain chemicals as a private citizen.

Edit:
To everyone spouting that "human rights are not for monsters" crap: Stop.
Own up to it, and admit that humans have always been and will always be capable or great evil. These are not "others". Human rights apply even to the worst of mankind.
Going the other way, these restrictions need to apply to everyone.

 

[LiK]

If you go around threatening to kill someone, it's not really free speech.

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

A group as evil as Nazis shouldn't have the rights to protect them. There is no positivist regarding Nazis and White Supremacists. They are no help to our nation's progress or enlightenment. They are a spur, a festering sore that needs to be treated accordingly. You don't have sympathy for a disease. You don't have sympathy for cancer. You treat it if you can, and eradicate it with the proper means possible. Nazism and White Nationalist beliefs should've been outlawed after WWII ended. That never happened, but we can do it NOW. There is no both sides or slippery slope. The enemy is as clear as day and their is no pussyfooting around this problem. We need to make hate speech illegal under the law of the United States and Nazis, the Alt-Right and White Supremacist groups FOREVER be considered "enemies of our nation" and treated as such. So much injustice in our country has slide because of White Supremacist ideals. If we ever want to be a truly great nation, we gotta take action against those that would hold us back (to "good old days" of oppression and fear), and stomp each and every one of them that have gotten bold after Trump's rise to power.

 

[Wallach]

Free speech cannot protect hate speech. Simple.

All Nazi speech is hate speech.

 

[Resident_UA]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Interesting...

 

[Shaanyboi]

Hate speech deserves no protections. Free speech allows you to say "My government official is a fucking assholes and needs to be replaced" without fear of being arrested. It doesn't allow you to say "death to the non-whites."

 

[Akuun]

Free speech is not the same thing as hate speech. This is why even though it's "just words", things like death threats, harassing phone calls, and inappropriate remarks count as crimes.

People are free to question things, but if someone makes repeated phone calls to someone telling them to kill themselves, then that's harassment. Likewise, discussing differences between races and genders is one thing, but calling on people to run over minorities is encouraging murder.

The idea behind free speech is to not squash ideas. It's so that people can bring up and discuss anything freely without fear. But hate speech is not trying to start a conversation about anything. The purpose of hate speech is to spread hate and find an excuse to be violent. It's not covered by the spirit behind free speech. Hate speech crosses the line because it's an active attempt to cause harm.

 

[Jokab]

I think one of the strongest logical arguments is that Nazis would get rid of freedom of speech if they somehow came to power again.

 

[MadLaughter]

I am in favor with cutting the 'free speech' line off a good bit before advocating racism and genocide.

 

[Xando]

I feel weird about Germany banning books too. But I can't deny that it seems to have a good balance. I bet Russia invested insane amount of money into propaganda specifically targeting Germany.

Banning books and getting convicted for incitement of hatred is very hard and a lot of these cases (Unless blatantly obvious nazi shit) go before the supreme court.


This is the german definition of volksverhetzung(hatespeech):

Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population

 

[Nephtes]

I'm of mixed opinion on all this....

If they're not free to espouse their hateful ideology, how will I know which people are Nazis?
If they're not allowed to be evil pieces of shit, then they'll just be in the closet about their shitbag ideas and God forbid someone might actually hire them, or befriend them...

I hate their speech, but I like that their speech outs them as people I want nothing to do with...

Kind of like people who put bumper stickers on their cars... "Oh look a bumper sticker, guess we won't be friends."

 

[Nokterian]

Hate Speech is not Freedom of Speech

This right here.

 

[Dan-o]

Contrapoints did some excellent videos on the topic.

 

[EGM1966]

Freedom of speech is s principle. And a good one.

It has exceptions though like everything in a human society because - at least currently - complete freedom of speech is impossible to support without issue

The trick is having as few exceptions to the rule as possible and making sure they're sensible and don't represent a loophole for exploitation.

Hate speech such as that from nazis or KKK is a clear exception in a civilised society.

 

[Star Falcon]

If an organized march of people who admittedly identified themselves as Daesh marched on protest through America... would the reaction have been the same from the White House?

 

[NewDust]

Freedom of Speech works in a way that the government can't take action against you for what you say (unless hate speech). But Free Speech can very well be moderated by society, deciding what it deems acceptable and what not.

 

[SaitoH]

Wouldn't walking around with a Nazi flag count as incitement and therefore not be protected by the first amendment?

 

[Cybit]

Everyone arguing here for "limits" does realize that Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions would be the ones setting those limits right now, and the current US police force and Department of Justice would be the ones in charge of enforcing those "limits", right? Or to put it more bluntly, do you think that Nazis would be the ones having their speech restricted (and tagged as hate speech) by the government right now, or, say, Occupy Wall Street and BLM?

 

[MHWilliams]

There were a lot of discussions about Nazis and Trump in the past few days, but one topic that I feel is really overlooked is freedom of speech. I despise these terrorists that invaded Charlottesville but I also feel that freedom of speech is the greatest thing that America has going for it. And honestly I don't know how to reconcile these things... Does it mean that freedom of speech only works if there's someone at the top to check America's moral compass? Is Trump actually the problem vs just being a symptom?

I know there's a chance that some will feel that this thread is pointless, but this is something I've been struggling with for a while. There's very similar issue in Ukraine (where I was born). Ukrainian government banned pretty much all Russian media (for very good reasons), but I still have mixed feelings about it.

Is there a way to fight bigotry and propaganda in free speech society?

Paradox of Freedom

The idea itself is quite simple, as has been stated: freedom in the sense of absence of any restriction from the other, will necessarily lead to absolute restriction from the other. In other words, as Hobbes well understood, if we are left to complete freedom without any restraints, we will fall prey to absolute chaos – a state of nature as Hobbes called it, or a pre-political order of violence to use Arendt's terminology. This type of ‘law of the jungle' where the strong will dominate the weak will eventually mean that only those at the top are free, and those at the bottom are not. Hence the paradox of freedom.

And Paradox of Tolerance

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Essentially, given the reality of interplay between people, giving true and complete freedom to any one party will eventually infringe upon another. So, the real question is, what are the limits? We have, in the past decided on some limits that previously included the Nazism in polite society, but in an effort to look more erudite and open, we've allowed to the idea to gain a larger foothold.

Everyone arguing here for "limits" does realize that Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions would be the ones setting those limits right now, and the current US police force and Department of Justice would be the ones in charge of enforcing those "limits", right? Or to put it more bluntly, do you think that Nazis would be the ones having their speech restricted (and tagged as hate speech) by the government right now, or, say, Occupy Wall Street and BLM?

That argument is already playing out. If you point the government and law enforcement at a people, you are already infringing on their rights, including speech. This also ignores the limits of free speech in several areas to minimize actual harm to citizens.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

If an organized march of people who admittedly identified themselves as Daesh marched on protest through America... would the reaction have been the same from the White House?

Drones equipped with nuclear warheads would be my guess.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Its not really the 1st amendment dilemma people make it out to be. The 1st amendment really only arguably means that you can't throw them in jail. That's it. That's freedom of speech. You don't have to give them a platform to speak, you don't have to grant them the permission to rally or protest, you don't have to listen to what they have to say or respect their opinion.

 

[Westbahnhof]

I feel weird about Germany banning books too. But I can't deny that it seems to have a good balance. I bet Russia invested insane amount of money into propaganda specifically targeting Germany.

There is a guidebook about how to educate and train your children, legally sold, of course, in America.
Kids have died this way.
I see why certain books would be banned.