Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 04:57:27 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Nazis and the upper limit of free speech
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Print
Author Topic: Nazis and the upper limit of free speech  (Read 19622 times)
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« on: August 15, 2017, 12:32:52 pm »

As you all are likely aware, there was a "Unite The Right" rally this weekend, in part to protest the removal of a statue of a Confederate general.  This rally featured actual Nazis, flying literal swastika flags, marching alongside people proudly flying the Confederate flag (among others).

Setting aside the obvious implications on what preserving Southern heritage really means, this was a rally with honest-to-goodness torch-wielding Nazis (and people who are happy to march next to Nazis).  While I am a supporter of free speech and the First Amendment, I think it is fair and reasonable to say that Nazis are an exception.  Much like the proverbial yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater, we cannot have a reasoned political contest of ideologies where if you win the political debate, you get to kill me and my family.  That is a bridge too far.

I don't make this exception for the KKK or Westboro Baptist.  (I think an argument could be made to apply it to the Confederates.)  But when you consider that the Nazis were responsible for the deadliest war in the history of human civilization along with a terrible genocide, I am frankly unwilling to extend them the courtesy of joining the debate table.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 12:35:12 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2017, 01:45:00 pm »

Disagree.  They have the right to free expression and making an exception for one group is a dangerous prescident.  What is egregious is when the Nazis have that tacit support of the POTUS.  I don't agree with every SC decision but they got Skockie right.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Tenshot13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8078


Email
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2017, 04:24:39 pm »

Disagree.  They have the right to free expression and making an exception for one group is a dangerous prescident.  What is egregious is when the Nazis have that tacit support of the POTUS.  I don't agree with every SC decision but they got Skockie right.

I agree with you.  Free expression for all, even if you are a racist that believes in genocide.  It's a slippery slope if you make exceptions.
Logged
Sunstroke
YJFF Member
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 22787

Stop your bloodclot cryin'!


Email
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2017, 04:26:58 pm »


Freedom of speech is good...getting outed for your free speech being nazi racist napalm...even better.

Logged

"There's no such thing as objectivity. We're all just interpreting signals from the universe and trying to make sense of them. Dim, shaky, weak, staticky little signals that only hint at the complexity of a universe that we cannot begin to comprehend."
~ Micah Leggat
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2017, 05:28:48 pm »

I agree with you.  Free expression for all, even if you are a racist that believes in genocide.  It's a slippery slope if you make exceptions.
I am happy to jump on the slippery slope of every group that was simultaneously responsible for a worldwide war and targeted genocide.

I originally thought of this because of some of the speech limitations Germany has about Nazism, and I can't say those laws are unjust.  Nazis have already done enough damage to the world that I think we can comfortably say, "You don't get another turn to sit at the table."  There is a reasonable case to be made that they are the single worst political faction in the history of humanity.

And again, we don't have any problem with the slippery slope of yelling "Fire!", nor with the slippery slope of people encouraging others to, say, assassinate the President.  We all recognize that free speech has some necessary limits to protect the real, immediate safety of others.  I'd say a political group that advocates for the extermination of other races falls into the same category.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 05:32:21 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2017, 05:37:13 pm »

Disagree.  They have the right to free expression and making an exception for one group is a dangerous prescident.  What is egregious is when the Nazis have that tacit support of the POTUS.  I don't agree with every SC decision but they got Skockie right.
I agree wiht your sentiment but I do not agree they have POTUS support nor have they ever. I put many groups into the hate group category but disagree with violence towards them or censoring their ability to speak.

I am a conservative who does not agree with removing history but I do condemn the KKK, White Supremacists, Communists, the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matters, Nazis (National Socialists), CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and ANTIFA.  While each one may some sort of a legitimate cause they are all separatist organizations who are set up only to destroy people who are not like them.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 30395

It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2017, 05:45:48 pm »

This is false equivalence, and what the right is so guilty of. 

To include a bunch of hate groups and then BLM.  ...I mean, I get the criticism of BLM, but to include them in the conversation with literal Neo-Nazis is ludicrous.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2017, 05:51:54 pm »

This is false equivalence, and what the right is so guilty of. 

To include a bunch of hate groups and then BLM.  ...I mean, I get the criticism of BLM, but to include them in the conversation with literal Neo-Nazis is ludicrous.
You can compare Trump to Nazis but not white supremacists to Black Lives Matter? Not sure I get that one. They are clearly both hate groups with separatist ideas. 
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
MyGodWearsAHoodie
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 14262



« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2017, 06:25:17 pm »

I am happy to jump on the slippery slope of every group that was simultaneously responsible for a worldwide war and targeted genocide.

I originally thought of this because of some of the speech limitations Germany has about Nazism, and I can't say those laws are unjust.  Nazis have already done enough damage to the world that I think we can comfortably say, "You don't get another turn to sit at the table."  There is a reasonable case to be made that they are the single worst political faction in the history of humanity.

And again, we don't have any problem with the slippery slope of yelling "Fire!", nor with the slippery slope of people encouraging others to, say, assassinate the President.  We all recognize that free speech has some necessary limits to protect the real, immediate safety of others.  I'd say a political group that advocates for the extermination of other races falls into the same category.

When limiting constitutional rights you need brightline non ambiguous rules, not rules that are subjective.  You may not falsely create an alarm.  Is a clear rule that prohibits yelling fire in a theater or making a false 911 call.  Nor may you make a direct an immediate threat. 

No such brightline rule could exist that would ban honoring Hitler that could not also apply banning honoring Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson.
Logged

There are two rules for success:
 1. Never tell everything you know.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2017, 07:48:50 pm »

You can compare Trump to Nazis but not white supremacists to Black Lives Matter? Not sure I get that one. They are clearly both hate groups with separatist ideas. 
An organization that calls for police to stop killing unarmed black people is a "hate group"?

Your false equivalence is amazing.  The Nazis killed millions of Jews in concentration camps and invaded most of Europe.  The KKK lynched thousands and terrorized millions more.  BLM... caused some traffic jams while protesting.  Many sides were in the wrong!

I'm just waiting for people to start "both sides"-ing David Duke and Colin Kaepernick.  Both are avatars of racial hatred!

When limiting constitutional rights you need brightline non ambiguous rules, not rules that are subjective.  You may not falsely create an alarm.  Is a clear rule that prohibits yelling fire in a theater or making a false 911 call.  Nor may you make a direct an immediate threat.
So when Nazis talk about exterminating Jews, doesn't that count as a direct threat?

Quote
No such brightline rule could exist that would ban honoring Hitler that could not also apply banning honoring Robert E. Lee or Andrew Jackson.
The United States didn't go to war against a country Andrew Jackson was leading.  And if you wanted to argue that we should not be honoring traitors that we DID go to war against, I can't really say you're wrong.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 08:03:14 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Cathal
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 2519


« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2017, 12:01:14 am »

Man.... If only we had an actual President. That would be nice. Not someone who tolerates hate as much as this. Of course, anyone who saw the actual evidence (i.e., any of his rallies or speeches), could have seen this coming.
Logged
CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2017, 12:31:57 am »

An organization that calls for police to stop killing unarmed black people is a "hate group"?
You can't take one small portion of their cause and pretend it's their only goal. That's the problem with every one of these hate groups. The white supremacists say they are only looking out for the white history that is being destroyed. It's a legitimate issue but it isn't their real agenda and everyone knows it.

If your other reasoning is to point fingers and say the other group is worse .... it's still a losing argument. Two different degrees of wrong is still wrong.  Whether I'm 10 miles over the speed limit or 20 .... I'm still speeding.
Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2017, 01:28:54 am »

What, exactly, do you think the goal of BLM is?  To eradicate the white man?  To kill all the police?  Because that's what it would need to be for them to be equivalent to Nazis.

Subjugating and killing "inferior races" is not some sort of hidden subtext of Nazi ideology.  Again, WW2 made their belief system pretty clear.  The fact that you compare a political group who publicly advocates for non-violent civil disobedience to one who invaded most of Europe's countries to enforce racial supremacy while killing millions of Jewish civilians in the process is sad.  When you have to argue that there's no meaningful difference in degrees of wrong in the process of defending literal Nazis... you may want to step back and consider where your political leaders have led you.

In the party of Trump, Republicans can no longer simply say, "Nazis are terrible and we should reject them."  The most aggressive anti-Nazi position that is acceptable to Republicans in 2017 is, "Sure, Nazis are bad, but liberal protesters are also bad, so..."
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 01:49:18 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

CF DolFan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 16870


cf_dolfan
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2017, 02:53:02 am »

What, exactly, do you think the goal of BLM is?  To eradicate the white man?  To kill all the police?  Because that's what it would need to be for them to be equivalent to Nazis.
I never said they were equal. I said

-Two different degrees of wrong is still wrong.

- While each one may some sort of a legitimate cause they are all separatist organizations who are set up only to destroy people who are not like them.

- They are clearly both hate groups with separatist ideas.

Logged

Getting offended by something you see on the internet is like choosing to step in dog shite instead of walking around it.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2017, 03:02:49 am »

If you agree that they are not equal, then why are you representing this position of "We can't criticize Nazis unless we also criticize liberal protesters"?

You can criticize Nazis as a standalone statement, because Nazis are worse than protesters.  If you feel the need to point out the deficiencies in other political groups when comparing them to actual effing Nazis then you should reconsider what you stand for.

The ultimate irony in all this is that conservatives have complained for decades about liberals comparing them to Nazis.  And yet when literal Nazis show up, you guys are trying to minimize their significance and play the what-about game while comparing them to protesters.

Protesters didn't kill millions of Jews.  Nazis did.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 03:04:21 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines