Support NeoGAF

[Joni]

Yes, those are ideas, and people should have the right to communicate them.

Those people are monsters. But they have rights.

And in Europe, we mostly disagree because even communicating them causes too much people harm hurting their rights.

 

[benjipwns]

And in Europe, we mostly disagree because even communicating them causes too much people harm hurting their rights.

In the United States we tried this with the people who were being harmed by those who opposed slavery, who supported labor rights, who endorsed socialism and communism, who opposed war, etc.

Then we started to realize "no law" actually means "no law" in the original Klingon.

 

[oti]

Some rights are more important than others. I value freedom of thought and expression very highly, even if that can have ugly results.

Again, I understand the opposing viewpoint, and I don't think anyone is bad or immoral or evil for having it. It is a difficult position my beliefs put me in, and I do struggle with them.

I get that and I'm sorry for jumping on you. In theory you're right but seeing Nazis spewing their dangerous garbage and calling for violence against minorities, something needs to be done. The social media companies did promise to delete hate speech, the government did give them the opportunity to govern that themselves. But they didn't. They failed. Now the government moves to their next tool, which are hefty fines.

 

[Joni]

In the United States we tried this with the people who were being harmed by those who opposed slavery, who supported labor rights, who endorsed socialism and communism, who opposed war, etc.

So the problem with European hate speech laws is the American slippery slope that Europe avoided. Things that America didn't avoid despite the lack of limits.

 

[Matt]

Don't. Free speech absolutism is the only sane position, anything else sacrifices liberty for the false promise of security. Read the Hugo Black quote I posted above for more.

I am not going to change my beliefs, but I think questioning your own viewpoints is a good thing. I do understand what other people in this thread are saying, and I appreciate their good intentions. Good people making arguments for the greater good deserve to be given the benefit of considered thought, even if I know I am not going to change my moral determination.

 

[Matt]

I get that and I'm sorry for jumping on you. In theory you're right but seeing Nazis spewing their dangerous garbage and calling for violence against minorities, something needs to be done. The social media companies did promise to delete hate speech, the government did give them the opportunity to govern that themselves. But they didn't. They failed. Now the government moves to their next tool, which are hefty fines.

And again, I just can't sign on to the government using its power to prevent the free spread of ideas, even though obviously preventing the rise of people like the Nazis is a worthy goal. Having Nazis around is the price I am willing to pay for a free society, as awful as that sounds.

 

[Carcetti]

Don't. Free speech absolutism is the only sane position, anything else sacrifices liberty for the false promise of security. Read the Hugo Black quote I posted above for more.

Oh, I wish I'd gotten in on the joke sooner but considering I remember people like Manos from here, it's hard to notice it sometimes..

This stance you put there really is absolutely hilarious when you consider American free speech absolutism has produced a society that's about the opposite of equal, safe, and free.

 

[benjipwns]

So the problem with European hate speech laws is the American slippery slope that Europe avoided. Things that America didn't avoid despite the lack of limits.

No, the problem is despite America violating its law to impose violence against minorities it accomplished nothing good.

Europe didn't avoid these crimes either.

The point is that it behooves nations that wish to have democratic governments to place speech protections in the law, not speech restrictions. The former requires vigilance to uphold like all protections, the latter concedes the high ground to the tyrants and bigots that thrive under them.

Oh, I wish I'd gotten in on the joke sooner! This really is absolutely hilarious when you consider American free speech absolutism has produced a society that's about the opposite of equal, safe, and free.

Again, America has not practiced free speech absolutism despite it being the letter of the law.

And again, I just can't sign on to the government using its power to prevent the free spread of ideas, even though obviously preventing the rise of people like the Nazis is a worthy goal. Having Nazis around is the price I am willing to pay for a free society, as awful as that sounds.

The "irony" is that the Nazi's didn't thrive under democratic government, the Weimar Republic had collapsed into a low level civil war where law was passed by decree against the Bundestag. Only then were the Nazi's a viable political party and not sitting in jail for their violent actions. After democracy had fallen and the two largest parties (NDSAP and the Communist Party) were committed to its burial.

 

[Matt]

So the problem with European hate speech laws is the American slippery slope that Europe avoided. Things that America didn't avoid despite the lack of limits.

Avoided? It's not like Europe doesn't have a long history of oppression and violence.

 

[Matt]

Oh, I wish I'd gotten in on the joke sooner but considering I remember people like Manos from here, it's hard to notice it sometimes..

This stance you put there really is absolutely hilarious when you consider American free speech absolutism has produced a society that's about the opposite of equal, safe, and free.

The opposite? Nah. America has problems, but so does Germany (to different degrees). I don't think the answer to America's issues is a government crackdown on speech.

 

[excelsiorlef]

And again, I just can't sign on to the government using its power to prevent the free spread of ideas, even though obviously preventing the rise of people like the Nazis is a worthy goal. Having Nazis around is the price I am willing to pay for a free society, as awful as that sounds.

What a sacrifice...

Having Nazis around totally worked out great the first time.

 

[Matt]

What a sacrifice...

Having Nazis around totally worked out great the first time.

It is a sacrifice. It would be easier to just outlaw their beliefs and make them criminals for their thoughts. The hard part is living with them, and fighting against the terrible things that could cause.

 

[benjipwns]

What a sacrifice...

Having Nazis around totally worked out great the first time.

Outlawing them as a political party didn't seem to help much.

 

[Messofanego]

By the way, here's a great video about the difference between freedom of speech and "freedom of speech".



A lot of Americans seem to think that ANYTHING that somehow prevents them from saying something is an infringement on free speech.
That "freedom of speech" means "freedom of any consequence", instead of meaning that they can express themselves without the government interfering. In particular this is in regards to protection of your right to express disagreement with the government, its policies, personnel within it, etc. - that's what the intention behind it is.
There always have been exceptions to the right to free speech. For instance, inciting to violence or other crimes generally is illegal. So are libel/slander. Stuff like that.

Now, a lot of "freedom of speech activists" seem to think that any sort of repercussion from people or organizations that do not represent the government is censorship and curtailing their freedom of speech. For instance universities creating safe spaces for minorities, or Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos, or Facebook removing anti-semitic posts, even down to people simply blocking others on Twitter, people getting fired from their workplace for expressing bigotry on social media, or whatnot. And of course, this also includes criticism of their opinions and statements.

Essentially, they seem to think that "freedom of speech" means "freedom to be an asshole to anyone without any repercussions" social or otherwise.

Haha at Amazing Atheist's website being shut down because no one wanted to touch it for advertising. Seems like freeze peach isn't fun to watch or commercially viable when it's hate speech all the time.

 

[Xando]

It is a sacrifice. It would be easier to just outlaw their beliefs and make them criminals for their thoughts. The hard part is living with them, and fighting against the terrible things that could cause.

We've tried that before and the result was 60 million dead people (2.3% of world population).

There is a reason the german constitution puts human dignity and human rights above free speech

 

[Matt]

We've tried that before and the result was 60 million dead people (2.3% of world population).

There is a reason the german constitution puts humand dignity and human rights above free speech

I understand the reason. I'm not denigrating the people that made those decisions for Germany. They had good intentions. I still disagree with the principle behind it.

 

[Auto-Reply]

Some rights are more important than others. I value freedom of thought and expression very highly, even if that can have ugly results.

Again, I understand the opposing viewpoint, and I don't think anyone is bad or immoral or evil for having it. It is a difficult position my beliefs put me in, and I do struggle with them.

I think speach is not a passive thing, it's not vibrations in the air that dissipate over time. It's an action inciting a reaction when you proclaim that some people don't deserve to live because they are different from you in some way, you are not talking to yourself!
You are free to express yourself in every form you desire but if that means that you want to express how glad you would be that every Jew would be dead or that people should burn all homosexuals then you better express these thoughts inside your own 4 walls and not in the public/internet where your ideas spread and turn into projectiles targeting those peoples. Your own freedom ends where another person's freedom beginns and that freedom is more than just the personal geometrical space around them!

"It's just mean words" is the most reductionist and deceitful way of describing hate speach. Words are put on paper and turned into laws, people die because of words!

 

[Matt]

I think speach is not a passive thing, it's not vibrations in the air that dissipate over time. It's an action inciting a reaction when you proclaim that some people don't deserve to live because they are different from you in some way, you are not talking to yourself!
You are free to express yourself in every form you desire but if that means that you want to express how glad you would be that every Jew would be dead or that people should burn all homosexuals then you better express these thoughts inside your own 4 walls and not in the public/internet where your ideas spread and turn into projectiles targeting those peoples. Your own freedom ends where another person's freedom beginns and that freedom is more than just the personal geometrical space around them!

"It's just mean words" is the most reductionist and deceitful way of describing hate speach. Words are put on paper and turned into laws, people die because of words!

I know words are powerful. I know they can hurt people, I am well aware of this.

It doesn't change anything for me.

Turning those evil words into law on the other hand, that I would fight against.

 

[benjipwns]

There is a reason the german constitution puts human dignity and human rights above free speech

But does it? Freedom of speech is an inalienable human right and therefore required for human dignity.

Of course, the Basic Law also rejects human rights and dignity just eleven articles later when it endorses slavery so it's about as airtight as the American Constitution.

 

[Xando]

But does it? Freedom of speech is an inalienable human right and therefore required for human dignity.

It very clearly recognizes that you are free to say whatever you want unless you violate the rights of others

Of course, the Basic Law also rejects human rights and dignity just eleven articles later when it endorses slavery so it's about as airtight as the American Constitution.

Not exactly sure what you are talking about.

[Occupational freedom]

(1) All Germans shall have the right freely to choose their occupation or profession, their place of work and their place of training. The practice of an occupation or profession may be regulated by or pursuant to a law.

(2) No person may be required to perform work of a particular kind except within the framework of a traditional duty of community service that applies generally and equally to all.

(3) Forced labour may be imposed only on persons deprived of their liberty by the judgment of a court.

Where does it speak about slavery?

 

[Joni]

But does it? Freedom of speech is an inalienable human right and therefore required for human dignity.

One of those other inalienable human rights if you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

 

[benjipwns]

the one after that, maybe i counted wrong

One of those other inalienable human rights if you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

ironic that a declaration of human rights imposes an impossible duty on all that must be met before they're "granted" human rights isn't it

 

[Xando]

the one after that, maybe i counted wrong

Article 12a
[Compulsory military and alternative civilian service]

(1) Men who have attained the age of eighteen may be required to serve in the Armed Forces, in the Federal Border Police, or in a civil defence organisation.

(2) Any person who, on grounds of conscience, refuses to render military service involving the use of arms may be required to perform alternative service. The duration of alternative service shall not exceed that of military service. Details shall be regulated by a law, which shall not interfere with the freedom to make a decision in accordance with the dictates of conscience, and which shall also provide for the possibility of alternative service not connected with units of the Armed Forces or of the Federal Border Police.

(3) Persons liable to compulsory military service who are not called upon to render service pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this Article may, when a state of defence is in effect, be assigned by or pursuant to a law to employment involving civilian services for defence purposes, including the protection of the civilian population; they may be assigned to public employment only for the purpose of discharging police functions or such other sovereign functions of public administration as can be discharged only by persons employed in the public service. The employment contemplated by the first sentence of this paragraph may include services within the Armed Forces, in the provision of military supplies, or with public administrative authorities; assignments to employment connected with supplying and servicing the civilian population shall be permissible only to meet their basic requirements or to guarantee their safety.

(4) If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms.

(5) Prior to the existence of a state of defence, assignments under paragraph (3) of this Article may be made only if the requirements of paragraph (1) of Article 80a are met. In preparation for the provision of services under paragraph (3) of this Article that demand special knowledge or skills, participation in training courses may be required by or pursuant to a law. In this case the first sentence of this paragraph shall not apply.

(6) If, during a state of defence, the need for workers in the areas specified in the second sentence of paragraph (3) of this Article cannot be met on a voluntary basis, the right of German citizens to abandon their occupation or place of employment may be restricted by or pursuant to a law in order to meet this need. Prior to the existence of a state of defence, the first sentence of paragraph (5) of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Article 13
[Inviolability of the home]

(1) The home is inviolable.

(2) Searches may be authorised only by a judge or, when time is of the essence, by other authorities designated by the laws, and may be carried out only in the manner therein prescribed.

(3) If particular facts justify the suspicion that any person has committed an especially serious crime specifically defined by a law, technical means of acoustical surveillance of any home in which the suspect is supposedly staying may be employed pursuant to judicial order for the purpose of prosecuting the offence, provided that alternative methods of investigating the matter would be disproportionately difficult or unproductive. The authorisation shall be for a limited time. The order shall be issued by a panel composed of three judges. When time is of the essence, it may also be issued by a single judge.

(4) To avert acute dangers to public safety, especially dangers to life or to the public, technical means of surveillance of the home may be employed only pursuant to judicial order. When time is of the essence, such measures may also be ordered by other authorities designated by a law; a judicial decision shall subsequently be obtained without delay.

(5) If technical means are contemplated solely for the protection of persons officially deployed in a home, the measure may be ordered by an authority designated by a law. The information thereby obtained may be otherwise used only for purposes of criminal prosecution or to avert danger and only if the legality of the measure has been previously determined by a judge; when time is of the essence, a judicial decision shall subsequently be obtained without delay.

(6) The Federal Government shall report to the Bundestag annually as to the employment of technical means pursuant to paragraph (3) and, within the jurisdiction of the Federation, pursuant to paragraph (4) and, insofar as judicial approval is required, pursuant to paragraph (5) of this Article. A panel elected by the Bundestag shall exercise parliamentary oversight on the basis of this report. A comparable parliamentary oversight shall be afforded by the Länder.

(7) Interferences and restrictions shall otherwise only be permissible to avert a danger to the public or to the life of an individual, or, pursuant to a law, to confront an acute danger to public safety and order, in particular to relieve a housing shortage, to combat the danger of an epidemic, or to protect young persons at risk.

Still nothing about slavery

 

[Siegcram]

Of course, the Basic Law also rejects human rights and dignity just eleven articles later when it endorses slavery so it's about as airtight as the American Constitution.

This is just getting weird.

 

[benjipwns]

Article 12a.

Compulsory service is a blatant form of slavery. Especially during a war.

 

[Xando]

Article 12a.

Compulsory service is a blatant form of slavery. Especially during a war.

Article 12a can only be actived during a state of defence which has to be allowed by the bundestag with a two thirds majority. It has then have to be approved by the supreme court.

Going by your description of slavery every country with conscription laws is a country that practices slavery? I think you are doing a misservice to people living in actual slavery here

 

[benjipwns]

Going by your description of slavery every country with conscription laws is a country that practices slavery?

When it activates and enforces those laws you're damn sure they are.

And in the United States we sent people to jail for opposing it. And "no law" didn't apply because FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE.

Wilson was the monster, but Holmes was a menace.

 

[Metal B]

In the UK, some councils now routinely use antiterrorism laws to monitor subjects that have nothing to do with terrorism such as enforcing recycling, checking whether an individual lives within a school catchment area etc.

Likewise, Government can redefine what constitutes hate speech or fake news very easily to include whistle blowing or alternative opinions for favourable to them.

Not good.

That's why basic human rights are the first law in Germany before anything else. Using other laws to undermine those would be illegal or would need a very powerful ruling party.

Also the UK has a big problem with hate speech and fake news. Juts look at those objects full of hate and lies, which you call "newspapers", which could be finally tanking their economy, split their country and put very dangerous people in power.

 

[Greddleok]

eek, unfortunate wording. English isnt my primary language, mea culpa. Freedom of speech is paramount, but that freedom does not grant you the right to make racist remarks, purposely try to hurt or insult people or instigate violence against.

Ok, no problem. Personally the way I see it, is that people should be allowed to say what they want, but can't expect the wider community to accept them, like them, or even tolerate them. I don't think there should be government mandated punitive measures against individuals.

This is different though. Social media sites are curated and owned by people/corporations that don't have to let people say horrible things. I think Germany's idea of fining the companies is a decent idea. The major issue I see with it, is that I want to know if my friend/coworker is a scumbag, and taking it down within 24 hours might hide that fact. Unlikely, because if they're wiling to do it once, they'll probably do it again.

 

[MUnited83]

In the UK, some councils now routinely use antiterrorism laws to monitor subjects that have nothing to do with terrorism such as enforcing recycling, checking whether an individual lives within a school catchment area etc.

Likewise, Government can redefine what constitutes hate speech or fake news very easily to include whistle blowing or alternative opinions for favourable to them.

Not good.

Yet Germany hasn't somehow magically turned into Nazi Germany v2, while "Free Speech Utopia United States" is so damn free that the Patriot Act is a thing. Seems people in America only give a shit about being able to say horrible things but when faced with actual major freedom violations they just let it slide. Quite amusing.

 

[ty_hot]

Facebook is bullshit, there are nazi groups that shitpost all the time and are never punished, until one day they are finally blocked and then they create the same page just adding a number to the end (blablabla -> blablabla 1 -> blablabla 2...). They should block all those shit.

At the same time, pro-minority pages are constantly mass reported as 'spam' or whatever and are taken down. In Brazil any page that says anything bad about the behavior of the evangelicals is doomed to be taken down in a few hours.

Not to say the news portals that have the comment sections worst than Youtube's. It isnt hard to find comments such as 'oh I would fuck that bitch with my big dick' in a random news that involves a woman...

 

[Muffin1611]

Lol at compulsory service being slavery. Every slave that ever lived wants to have a word with you.

Also, hate speech law are "suppressing minorities"? If you mean the minority of people denying holocaust and spreading nazi ideology, then damn right you are.
That minority doesn't deserve to be there, and it would do everyone better if they weren't.
Their ideology directly threatens everything in the Grundgesetz, freedom of speech included.
And no, we don't let them rot in jail or kill them for it, they get a fine or three years jail time max.
The argument "You're suppressing the speech of minorities and kill them afterwards!!!11" is pretty hyperbolic and ridiciolous.
Funny how you want to protect so much that nazis can say what they want, but don't give a damn about the ACTUAL worthy of protection minorities who are being marginalized by them.

 

[Xando]

When it activates and enforces those laws you're damn sure they are.

I don't even know what to say about this but as someone who served in the Bundeswehr under conscription (when it was still active) i feel like this is a insult towards the hardship real slaves have/had to go through

 

[Copenap]

And again, I just can't sign on to the government using its power to prevent the free spread of ideas, even though obviously preventing the rise of people like the Nazis is a worthy goal. Having Nazis around is the price I am willing to pay for a free society, as awful as that sounds.

It's pretty obvious that you do not understand the reason of these laws at all.

Hate speech and other derogative views are not forbidden in order to prevent these "ideologies" to spread but instead because they directly violate another way more important right, the human dignity. If your words degrade another human being, his right of human dignity is violated and that is why certain things are not covered by freedom of speech. Something a lot of Americans unfortunately are unable to grasp because they only look at their own rights and not the people around them.

 

[lvl99 Pixel]

good
social media has been a haven for this kind of shit for such a long time

 

[Siegcram]

Article 12a.

Compulsory service is a blatant form of slavery. Especially during a war.

You are out of your mind. Educate yourself on the topic, before making such ludicrous and utterly baseless comparisons.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't even know what to say about this but as someone who served in the Bundeswehr under conscription (when it was still active) i feel like this is a insult towards the hardship real slaves have/had to go through

Lol at compulsory service being slavery. Every slave that ever lived wants to have a word with you.

And the millions upon millions were who were murdered in the 20th century alone because of the madmen who ruled their nations and forced them to march to their deaths? They should be dismissed for not being "real slaves" because why? Because it was on orders of a nation-state instead at the hands of a specific man?

Because one crime is pointed out does not mean that another crime is no longer one. Both can be vile. Both can be forms of slavery. Chattel slavery is unique in its grotesque place and so is the wanton slaughter of a generation or three in the name of national honor.

That minority doesn't deserve to be there, and it would do everyone better if they weren't.
Their ideology directly threatens everything in the Grundgesetz, freedom of speech included.
And no, we don't let them rot in jail or kill them for it, they get a fine or three years jail time max.
The argument "You're suppressing the speech of minorities and kill them afterwards!!!11" is pretty hyperbolic and ridiciolous.

That doesn't make much sense, these cretins threaten the very fabric of society but yet all they get is a fine or three years in jail? But they're so dangerous! They threaten everything! Everything!!!

Those who forsake liberty for security receive neither.

Funny how you want to protect so much that nazis can say what they want, but don't give a damn about the ACTUAL worthy of protection minorities who are being marginalized by them.

Funny how you presume to know what others think. All I have argued for is defense of absolute human rights and protection of freedom of speech. All minorities to be protected equally, no exceptions. It is near everyone else but Matt that wants to carve out certain minorities for exceptions, because they're so dangerous that they will tear the entire system apart. Unless they get a small Euro fine or a couple years imprisoned. That'll teach 'em.

I suppose unless they spend the years in jail writing a poorly written future bestseller as part of their path to victory once all the laws are flat.

Hate speech and other derogative views are not forbidden in order to prevent these "ideologies" to spread but instead because they directly violate another way more important right, the human dignity. If your words degrade another human being, his right of human dignity is violated and that is why certain things are not covered by freedom of speech. Something a lot of Americans unfortunately are unable to grasp because they only look at their own rights and not the people around them.

Rights are absolute. They are not contingent on a duty or else they become privileges not rights.

"Human dignity" is an impossible contingency placed before rights are to be respected. It's a tent so large that every justification can fit under it. It becomes the foremost duty. And thus, the entire time is spent enforcing the duty even at the cost of any and all rights. It becomes the ultimate....trump...card to play when a minority demands their human rights.

 

[Muffin1611]

And the millions upon millions were who were murdered in the 20th century alone because of the madmen who ruled their nations and forced them to march to their deaths? They should be dismissed for not being "real slaves" because why? Because it was on orders of a nation-state instead at the hands of a specific man?

Because one crime is pointed out does not mean that another crime is no longer one. Both can be vile. Both can be forms of slavery. Chattel slavery is unique in its grotesque place and so is the wanton slaughter of a generation or three in the name of national honor.

Are you seriously saying here that soldiers who served Hitler are equal to slaves?
Pretty much everyone agrees that the general German populace didn't do enough in an effort to prevent what Hitler did, and that soldiers should have revolted against him the moment he started acting inhumane against Jews etc.
Guess why they didn't? Because it became acceptable that Jews and Slavic people were "Untermenschen", that they weren't humans, and everything bad that ever happened to Germany was their fault.
That you try to make German soldiers out to be slaves when they had very real responsibility, some more some less, to what happened in the country is just revisionist and disgusting.

That doesn't make much sense, these cretins threaten the very fabric of society but yet all they get is a fine or three years in jail? But they're so dangerous! They threaten everything! Everything!!!

Those who forsake liberty for security receive neither.

It makes very much sense, no justice system deals in absolutes. That you're trying to make the point that if they are a threat to democracy they either should get the absolute sentence or nothing is a pretty useless point.

There has to be a line where liberty ends in favor of security. Your cute little quote doesn't apply to the US either.

 

[benjipwns]

Are you seriously saying here that soldiers who served Hitler are equal to slaves?
Pretty much everyone agrees that the general German populace didn't do enough in an effort to prevent what Hitler did, and that soldiers should have revolted against him the moment he started acting inhumane against Jews etc.
Guess why they didn't? Because it became acceptable that Jews and Slavic people were "Untermenschen", that they weren't humans, and everything bad that ever happened to Germany was their fault.
That you try to make German soldiers out to be slaves when they had very real responsibility, some more some less, to what happened in the country is just revisionist and disgusting.

Why would you ever think I was talking about just German soldiers and just those during World War II?

There has to be a line where liberty ends in favor of security.

No, there doesn't. Chasing complete security only leads to encroaching tyranny. It always starts with just a few minorities, the bad apples, the no goods, the undermenschen, not the "actual" or "real" minorities who deserve not just liberty but privilege. They get to decide the dignity that the rest have to give in exchange for rights.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Are you seriously saying here that soldiers who served Hitler are equal to slaves?

My guess would be that he's more referring to US Conscription during Vietnam, or Russian soldiers in WWII. Both faced severe penalties, up to and including death in some cases, for trying to refuse to serve their government.

 

[benjipwns]

I was starting mostly with the monstrous crime that was World War I because it's tied into the free speech suppression legacy of the U.S. government. It's where the "fire in a crowded theatre" vomit came from.

 

[Muffin1611]

Why would you ever think I was talking about just German soldiers and just those during World War II?

My guess would be that he's more referring to US Conscription during Vietnam, or Russian soldiers in WWII. Both faced severe penalties, up to and including death in some cases, for trying to refuse to serve their government.

I see, my misunderstanding then. Still, comparing that to compulsary service if it was enforced nowadays like it was enforced just some years ago is a really uneven comparison at best.

No, there doesn't. Chasing complete security only leads to encroaching tyranny. It always starts with just a few minorities, the bad apples, the no goods, the undermenschen, not the "actual" or "real" minorities who deserve not just liberty but privilege. They get to decide the dignity that the rest have to give in exchange for rights.

Regulating some liberties in favor of important security isn't "chasing complete security".

Also if that's your honest opinion, there's really nothing to discuss. If it is, you'd also have to disagree with many laws the US enforces, since in your ideology any attempt on security in sacrifice of a part of a liberty is inherently bad.

Which it isn't, and I can't fathom how one comes to that conclusion.

 

[benjipwns]

If it is, you'd also have to disagree with many laws the US enforces

I don't see this as a problem.

The disagreeing part.

Not the enforcing part.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

And again, I just can't sign on to the government using its power to prevent the free spread of ideas, even though obviously preventing the rise of people like the Nazis is a worthy goal. Having Nazis around is the price I am willing to pay for a free society, as awful as that sounds.

are you the target of any nazi hate speech?

 

[Matt]

It's pretty obvious that you do not understand the reason of these laws at all.

Hate speech and other derogative views are not forbidden in order to prevent these "ideologies" to spread but instead because they directly violate another way more important right, the human dignity. If your words degrade another human being, his right of human dignity is violated and that is why certain things are not covered by freedom of speech. Something a lot of Americans unfortunately are unable to grasp because they only look at their own rights and not the people around them.

I understand, I just disagree with that ordering of rights.

 

[Matt]

are you the target of any nazi hate speech?

My family is Jewish, and they originally came from Poland.

 

[Spiral Insanity]

Yes, those are ideas, and people should have the right to communicate them.

Those people are monsters. But they have rights.

Not when those actions intentionally, unequivocally, discriminate and hurt others.

People should have the right to be protected moreso than the right to do harm.