Nazis Have a Fundamental Right to Free Speech..or they don't

[Forty Two]

Nazis are not a protected group.

Freedom of speech is a right of protection from interference by state, not a right to say and do whatever you like.

Sure, and it protects individuals, not just groups. Nazis are a protected group, because a group of individuals have a right of free speech. Since when does the right of free speech only protect certain groups of people?

Huh?

You're trying gfar too hard to find fault there. Simply, there's no special protection for Nazi speech: Nazis are not a protected group.

Agreed, insofar as there is no such thing as a group that has special protection, right? We're talking about an individual right, correct? And, by extension, groups of people have the right to get together and express a message in unison, do they not?

When I typed "Nazis are a protected group" it was a way of putting that they are just as protected as any other group or individual. Everyone has an equal right in this regard, do they not?

And, indeed, the right is protection from restraints on speech by the State, which is what this thread is about - the idea of the ACLU representing a Nazi party against a governmental entity that was restricting their right to free speech by prohibiting them from demonstrating on a public street.

Nazis are not a protected group, immunised against legal limits or impositions, public order considerations, or whatever.

Nobody said they were immunized against legal limits. However, they are not specially disfavored either. If a group of anti-segregationists were to march in Montgomery Alabama in 1960, that group of individuals had the same right as the Nazis to march, did they not? Not greater. Not lesser. Right? If the government prohibited the anti-segregationists from marching, because of the potential public order considerations (the public might get really pissed off and unruly about the darkies marching, for example), it would be a violation of their freedom of speech to prohibit their demonstration, but allow a demonstration of a group that is palatable to the community, correct?

Are you suggesting that only certain groups, referred to as "protected groups," have a right not be interfered with by the government in that way? Nazis don't have that right? And, if so, where do you get that idea?

No, I'm implying that Nazis think that their intolerant position should be protected and that other considerations shouldn't apply to them - because they're speshul.

Some individuals may think that. But, the principle in question is whether they have the same rights as anyone else.

If these "other considerations" apply, such as "public order" and the state can silence the Nazis because of the reaction of other people to the message (a disorderly reaction) then would the government, in your view, also be justified in stopping an SJW march if the government surmised that disorder would result? A Black Lives Matter march? Do these "other considerations" in your view apply to marches, if, say, the city of Picayune, Mississippi concluded that there was a potential for disorder surrounding an atheist demonstration planned for Main Street, but the city of Picayune could allow a Christian church's demonstration down Main street because that one doesn't have much of a chance of inspiring disorder?

[Brian Peacock]

I feel you're looking for an absolute rule that holds regardless of what is being spoken about, advocated, promoted, agitated for or whatever. The principle outlined is that freedom of speech is not a licence to say and do whatever you like but a freedom to hold opinions and address public comment to the state without interference or fear of repercussions from the state. Again, this doesn't mean that there are never grounds for the state to interfere on behalf of others or that any repurcussions are never the business of the state. It is perhaps impossible to disentangle the principle from the context of what is being expressed such that moral and legal probity and fairness for the community resides wholly in the application thereof.

[Forty Two]

I feel you're looking for an absolute rule that holds regardless of what is being spoken about, advocated, promoted, agitated for or whatever. The principle outlined is that freedom of speech is not a licence to say and do whatever you like but a freedom to hold opinions and address public comment to the state without interference or fear of repercussions from the state. Again, this doesn't mean that there are never grounds for the state to interfere on behalf of others or that any repurcussions are never the business of the state. It is perhaps impossible to disentangle the principle from the context of what is being expressed such that moral and legal probity and fairness for the community resides wholly in the application thereof.

Not an absolute rule, simply one that neither allows the State, nor the heckler, to veto a political opinion based on the content or message of that opinion.

Generally, the freedom of expression is not just the freedom to address public comment "to the state." It's the right to express viewpoints and opinions in public.

You assert that "this doesn't mean that there are never grounds for the State to interfere on behalf of others..." but, that statement doesn't answer the question -- what grounds? I would submit that the content of the message ought not be, and cannot rationally be, such a ground. For example, the suggestion was that a Nazi idea is so inflammatory that it will likely result in people going batshit at the Nazi rally and attacking the Nazis, then I would say that such a feature cannot be a ground for prohibiting the speaker. The reason being is that the reaction of the listener or of the public to the expression of a viewpoint cannot be used as an excuse to silence the speaker - that would be allowing the opposition to shut down speakers by means of disruptive behavior that is no fault of the speaker. thus, whereas San Francisco might use that ground as a reason to prevent an anti-immigration group from marching and demonstrating against San Francisco's sanctuary city rules, it might also allow a city in Mississippi to prevent an atheist group or a LGBTQ group from demonstrating there because the towspeople might get up in arms about it. I.e., the Hecker's Veto cannot be allowed to silence speech, or everyone's speech is going to be silenced, because every point of view has an opposition. And, if the SJWs succeed in shutting down Jordan Peterson, and he's prevented from speaking because of how disruptive the audience of SJW's gets, then his team will show up at the next SJW-type rally and try to get that one shut down. The alternative the state is left with is to pick a side in the debate. And, the state picking a side in a political debate is precisely what the freedom of expression is designed to prevent, and the state picking a side in a political debate ends democracy because the people are then deprived of the right to control the government - the government controls the people.

So, what are these grounds you would suggest would apply? You mentioned public order, and I would say that there is a possible area of agreement for us here - as I could accept as rational the notion that if a speaker is actually calling for -- actually inciting - the violent conduct, then we have an area for the State to step in, because the state has a reasonable role in stopping that violence. So, they come in and stop the people who are getting violent and the ringleaders. But, that's not the Hecker's Veto - that's where the speaker is participating in the violence or at least directing it. So, I would agree that if the Nazis were holding a demonstration on the courthouse steps, and the speaker was pointing to Jews or blacks and saying "let's get them! let's burn their houses!" expressly inciting the crowd to immediate violence, then we have an order issue that attributable to the speaker. But, if we have a nazi speaking who says "jews are not human and should be deported" then that may be an offensive statement but it does not call for violence. It's a political opinion, as repugnant as it may be.

An interesting point, or a point I find interesting, is that when we look at a public order exception, we can see how it might actually work to gag the SJWs and progressive leftists. If someone is actually calling for the violence against people alleged to harbor views that are white nationalists and such, and if they are taking the stage and actually calling for people in the audience to go out and punch those undesirables, then aren't they inciting violence? Should that be allowed?

The SJWs say that hate speech and speech which causes people to get violent should not be allowed, and then they go out and direct hatred toward speakers they don't like and sometimes declare that violence should be meted out against them. Look what happened to charles murray and the other professor at Middlebury college, where the SJWs threatened them with violence, and even assaulted the professor, while screaming profanities and expressing hatred toward them. If the State has an interest in preventing such disruptions to "public order" might it not have an interest in silencing those groups too?

[Hermit]

("I am not a right winger" objection in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... )

I'm not a right winger

Howzat for a prediction, eh?

Seriously now, I'm not a right winger either. Since neither of us are, why is it that we disagree with so many of each other's opinions?

[Hermit]

I find it odd that you are unable to puzzle out why a person would be in favor of the same rights of freedom of speech for those who would, if given the chance, take away those rights.

I gave my reason in the post you ignored until just now, beginning with this question: "Is the irony lost on you that the Lord Chancellor lost his life precisely because of his unshakeably principled stand?"

Note my comment at the bottom of that post. It indicates that my view regarding the limits of freedom of speech has changed quite recently. It is provisional to the extent that at this stage I'm just trying it out for size. At the moment I feel like I'm only playing the role of a devil's advocate.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I understand your question -- people lose their lives all the time, it's not because of free speech, is it? How is free speech to blame?

You used More's words as imagined by Bolt to defend the right to freedom of speech, and More quite rightly expressed it in more general terms as everybody: "I'd give the Devil benefit of law" It is More's principled stand to extend the protection of the law to everybody without any discrimination whatsoever. Why? In More's words again: "for my own safety's sake." Unfortunately More's principled stand was a critical link in the chain of events that led to his wrongful execution. Can you now connect the dots?

[Forty Two]

("I am not a right winger" objection in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... )

I'm not a right winger

Howzat for a prediction, eh?

It's not a tough prediction, since I'm quite clear on my political positions, which I would describe as moderate. On the political compass, I fall midrange between the center point and bottom of the chart in terms of how non-authoritarian I am - i.e. very anti-authoritarian but not absolutely so. And, I've taken that test a few times and always fall right on the line between left and right or a block or two to the left. I've never taken the test and fallen to the right of the middle.

I am pro-choice on abortion. I am pro same sex marriage. I am pro-reasonable regulation of firearms, and I have no problems with the ban on automatic weapons, or limits on clip sizes and that sort of thing. I tend to oppose military involvement of the US, absent an attack on us. I am in favor of non-discrimination laws to prevent invidious discrimination. I favor the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs. I favor expanded legal immigration. I oppose the surveillance state and would disband the Department of Homeland Security. I am very much opposed to right wing criminal justice efforts, like three strikes your out and mandatory minimum sentencing. I would propose removing prison as a criminal justice tool except for violent offenders. I oppose racial profiling. Those are the major issues of the day off the top of my head, and you won't find a conservative viewpoint there. Any other issues you think I might be right wing?

Recall, or you may recall, that during the run up to the election last year in the US, I supported Trump, but I supported Trump for the reason that compared to the rest of the Republican field, particularly Cruz and Rubio, Trump was liberal. Cruz is a religious "Christian nation" theocrat who opposed same sex marriage and would propose laws to restrict which bathrooms people could use. I am fine with Trans people, by the way, using whatever bathroom they want, as is Trump. Same with Rubio - he was hyperconservative. Trump's foreign policy positions, by the way, were far less aggressive than Hillary Clinton's positions.

What happens is that folks glom onto one issue and then use that as a way to label others right winger and such. Here, it's the free speech issue. As Stephen Pinker has said, it's strange that the issue of freedom of expression has been politicized and now it's "right wing" to support freedom of speech for everyone, even distasteful people. His position, and mine, is that freedom of expression is a prior concept to politics. In other words, you need freedom of expression first, so all political positions can be aired.

Seriously now, I'm not a right winger either. Since neither of us are, why is it that we disagree with so many of each other's opinions?

Do we? Sometimes i wonder. Some issues and some discussions seem to become about perceived teams, and the discussions devolve into namecalling and fighting, and mischaracterizations of positions. I wonder how many issues do we really disagree on?

Do we even, really, disagree on this free speech issue? I sense with a couple of people here that there is a sincere desire to find some reasonable and rational way to justifying forcing the Nazis and racists to shut the fuck up. When I read some of the posts here, I'm sensing some poking around for justifications, but it's like toe in the water, where people are concerned they might be stepping into hot water. Not you, but someone else raised the general issue that "free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want, there are grounds for the government to stop speech ..." and one example was on the grounds of public order. But, precious little was said to amplify that -- what does that mean in practice? Not asking you to defend that ground, if you don't -- just raising it.

It's as if some folks are sure there must be a reason why the bad guys -- the dangerous guys - can be gagged.... but, just what is that reason that makes sense...? However, has anyone here come up with a solid basis for doing it that doesn't amount to "I know the bad guys when I see them, and when I see them, they should be gagged?"

[Forty Two]

I find it odd that you are unable to puzzle out why a person would be in favor of the same rights of freedom of speech for those who would, if given the chance, take away those rights.

I gave my reason in the post you ignored until just now, beginning with this question: "Is the irony lost on you that the Lord Chancellor lost his life precisely because of his unshakeably principled stand?"

Note my comment at the bottom of that post. It indicates that my view regarding the limits of freedom of speech has changed quite recently. It is provisional to the extent that at this stage I'm just trying it out for size. At the moment I feel like I'm only playing the role of a devil's advocate.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I understand your question -- people lose their lives all the time, it's not because of free speech, is it? How is free speech to blame?

You used More's words as imagined by Bolt to defend the right to freedom of speech, and More quite rightly expressed it in more general terms as everybody: "I'd give the Devil benefit of law" It is More's principled stand to extend the protection of the law to everybody without any discrimination whatsoever. Why? In More's words again: "for my own safety's sake." Unfortunately More's principled stand was a critical link in the chain of events that led to his wrongful execution. Can you now connect the dots?

The dots don't connect.

Note, the State killed him. The State found an exception. He was a traitor for failing to agree to the annulment and failing to take the oath of supremacy. What he needed was adherence to a principle that he was entitled to oppose the annulment and not take oaths he did not believe in. I'm in favor of taking that tool away from the State.

The position of those who say certain views don't get protection of freedom of expression, they afford the State the right to make the determination of which views are dangerous. If the State determined More's views were dangerous, then the exception provides the State with exactly what it needs to hang him.

The free speech exception that would gag Spencer and white supremacists, that would keep Charles Murray or Jordan Peterson off college campuses -- that free speech exception is a noose for the neck of the very leftists who are proposing them, because as soon as THEIR opposition gets a bit of power, they will use that noose to silence the leftists....who are busy advocating violence (against bad guys) and trying to silence speech they don't like --- how easy to cast them as the dangerous ones, no?

[Hermit]

I am pro-choice on abortion. I am pro same sex marriage. I am pro-reasonable regulation of firearms, and I have no problems with the ban on automatic weapons, or limits on clip sizes and that sort of thing. I tend to oppose military involvement of the US, absent an attack on us. I am in favor of non-discrimination laws to prevent invidious discrimination. I favor the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs. I favor expanded legal immigration. I oppose the surveillance state and would disband the Department of Homeland Security. I am very much opposed to right wing criminal justice efforts, like three strikes your out and mandatory minimum sentencing. I would propose removing prison as a criminal justice tool except for violent offenders. I oppose racial profiling. Those are the major issues of the day off the top of my head, and you won't find a conservative viewpoint there.

True, nothing conservative about those views. But then I did not call you a conservative. If you were a moderate you'd have supported Sanders. He advocated solidly moderate policies. Undoubtedly you'll regard my assessment of him as laughable, but Sanders is just a social democrat. To most people looking in from outside of the US that makes him a moderate. You think of him as a left winger because you don't have any left wing politicians at all who rate as much as a mention in the media, let alone have a seat in the hose of reps or the senate.

[pErvinalia]

Who gives a shit. If the world changes then the best arguments will be found to justify the state of things. -arguments shmarguments...

Not surprised at all that you would applaud that. It's your kind of argument.

Not surprised you'd miss the poignancy of the point. The point is that ideological liberalism (like all strict ideological adherence) is naive to the real world.

So how does that make "who gives a shit?" poignant? Because real world practicalities impact our judgments, it's a "who gives a shit?" issue?

Also, in what way, specifically, does the "real world" result in some people not being allowed to express their views, like people who may believe in authoritarian communism or authoritarian fascism, for example, not being permitted to write, publish or hold conferences. Lay out your case.

People don't care about reasoned arguments. That's why people fight. Presenting a reasoned counter-argument to a fascist is going to have zero effect on them. If you want to discourage or outright stop something dangerous, you've got to step up and get in the way of it.

[pErvinalia]

Does anyone want to summarise his argument? I can't really hear what he's saying on my laptop speakers. It seems to be in mono, and bad mono at that.

Well, it's old. Just turn up the speakers and have a listen. Trying to summarize anything for you is just a bad road to go down. You just start playing games and picking fights. If you're interested, just listen to it and address points you find interesting, relevant or rebuttable.

I just told you I can't hear what is being said.

If you don't want to summarise, fine. I assume it is as Hermit said and it's the usual naive arguments. Been addressed a million times..

Hermit did not say anything about the content of the video.

His summary may or may not have accurately represented the content of the video, but he certainly attempted to say something about the video.

And, fuck off. I don't want to summarize anything for you,

I didn't ask you to summarise. If you don't want to, don't. No need to have a tanty.

because you are full of it. Use your smartphone, then, to listen to the video. It's not believable that you can't hear the video. If you're not interested enough to listen to about 16 minutes of video, broken into four 4 minute chunks, then don't participate in the thread. Your contributions tend to be one-liners, platitudes and cliches, anyway.

Show me on this doll where I hurt your fee-fees...

[rainbow]

When you don't give them ful dictatorship rights...

I blame the moustache.

[Forty Two]

I am pro-choice on abortion. I am pro same sex marriage. I am pro-reasonable regulation of firearms, and I have no problems with the ban on automatic weapons, or limits on clip sizes and that sort of thing. I tend to oppose military involvement of the US, absent an attack on us. I am in favor of non-discrimination laws to prevent invidious discrimination. I favor the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs. I favor expanded legal immigration. I oppose the surveillance state and would disband the Department of Homeland Security. I am very much opposed to right wing criminal justice efforts, like three strikes your out and mandatory minimum sentencing. I would propose removing prison as a criminal justice tool except for violent offenders. I oppose racial profiling. Those are the major issues of the day off the top of my head, and you won't find a conservative viewpoint there.

True, nothing conservative about those views. But then I did not call you a conservative. If you were a moderate you'd have supported Sanders. He advocated solidly moderate policies.

Well, that I disagree with. Nationalizing colleges, for example is not moderate. He wanted to make college tuition free for everyone. He's also an avowed socialist.

Undoubtedly you'll regard my assessment of him as laughable, but Sanders is just a social democrat.

Not according to Sanders. According to Sanders himself he's a Democratic Socialist, which is entirely different. But, why take his word for it? He said on CNN during a debate that he was a socialist - not social democrat, which is different. He said it in 2015, and I first had Bernie Sanders on my radar 25 years ago, and he was an avowed socialist then, caucusing with the Democrats but he was a socialist. Social democracy is a social welfare state nested in market capitalism. Democratic socialism is socialism, state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, with the central government controlled via some form of democratic government (republic, parliamentary democracy, that kind of thing).

He knows the difference. People like to discount his own words, and say that, well, he says he's a socialist, but what he really means is Scandinavian social democracy. No. Scandinavian countries have vibrant market capitalism. They have generous welfare states, yes, but they have market capitalism and are not technically socialist. If he wanted that, he would say "I'm not socialist, I'm a social democrat."

To most people looking in from outside of the US that makes him a moderate. You think of him as a left winger because you don't have any left wing politicians at all who rate as much as a mention in the media, let alone have a seat in the hose of reps or the senate.

That's rather a myth. We have plenty of left wingers, we just have centrists tending to hold sway in both parties - except that the GOP got coopted by right wing religious nutjobs for a good while. Hopefully Trump will have stuck a fork in the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party.

And, Sanders is a left winger - you can't get much more left wing in western mainstream politics than an avowed socialist.

[Forty Two]

People don't care about reasoned arguments. That's why people fight. Presenting a reasoned counter-argument to a fascist is going to have zero effect on them. If you want to discourage or outright stop something dangerous, you've got to step up and get in the way of it.

Well, that certainly is one position to take, however, there are myriad opinions as to which views are the dangerous ones. Nazis and fascists have views on that too, and that's their thought process: if you want to discourage or stop something dangerous, they have to step up and get in the way of it. That's why they resort to violence, to stop their opposition. That's certainly unlawful, and I think most people would consider it immoral, but you've just made the case for it be a righteous act. That's the same case they make.

If the SJW left wants to go toe-to-toe with avowed Nazis, they may not like what happens in the end.

It's one thing to lash out at and hit a skinny blonde "white supremacist hate monger" ...it's quite another to punch actual neo-Nazis....

[Forty Two]

Show me on this doll where I hurt your fee-fees...

There's that unparalleled empathy...

You're microaggressing me.

[Hermit]

I am pro-choice on abortion. I am pro same sex marriage. I am pro-reasonable regulation of firearms, and I have no problems with the ban on automatic weapons, or limits on clip sizes and that sort of thing. I tend to oppose military involvement of the US, absent an attack on us. I am in favor of non-discrimination laws to prevent invidious discrimination. I favor the legalization and/or decriminalization of marijuana and other drugs. I favor expanded legal immigration. I oppose the surveillance state and would disband the Department of Homeland Security. I am very much opposed to right wing criminal justice efforts, like three strikes your out and mandatory minimum sentencing. I would propose removing prison as a criminal justice tool except for violent offenders. I oppose racial profiling. Those are the major issues of the day off the top of my head, and you won't find a conservative viewpoint there.

True, nothing conservative about those views. But then I did not call you a conservative. If you were a moderate you'd have supported Sanders. He advocated solidly moderate policies.

Well, that I disagree with. Nationalizing colleges, for example is not moderate. He wanted to make college tuition free for everyone. He's also an avowed socialist.

Undoubtedly you'll regard my assessment of him as laughable, but Sanders is just a social democrat.

Not according to Sanders. According to Sanders himself he's a Democratic Socialist, which is entirely different. But, why take his word for it? He said on CNN during a debate that he was a socialist - not social democrat, which is different. He said it in 2015, and I first had Bernie Sanders on my radar 25 years ago, and he was an avowed socialist then, caucusing with the Democrats but he was a socialist. Social democracy is a social welfare state nested in market capitalism. Democratic socialism is socialism, state ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, with the central government controlled via some form of democratic government (republic, parliamentary democracy, that kind of thing).

He knows the difference. People like to discount his own words, and say that, well, he says he's a socialist, but what he really means is Scandinavian social democracy. No. Scandinavian countries have vibrant market capitalism. They have generous welfare states, yes, but they have market capitalism and are not technically socialist. If he wanted that, he would say "I'm not socialist, I'm a social democrat."

To most people looking in from outside of the US that makes him a moderate. You think of him as a left winger because you don't have any left wing politicians at all who rate as much as a mention in the media, let alone have a seat in the hose of reps or the senate.

That's rather a myth. We have plenty of left wingers, we just have centrists tending to hold sway in both parties - except that the GOP got coopted by right wing religious nutjobs for a good while. Hopefully Trump will have stuck a fork in the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party.

And, Sanders is a left winger - you can't get much more left wing in western mainstream politics than an avowed socialist.

"you can't get much more left wing in western mainstream politics" LOL. Left wing of mainstream politics I can accept, provided you add "US" to that.

Anyway, I knew you would disagree with the lot of what I said, and I know why you'd disagree: You are a right winger rather than a moderate. Sanders never once as much as suggested that it might be a good idea to nationalise the means of production. But yeah, you equate government regulation imposed on privately owned means of production with nationalising the means of production - which is more proof that you are a right winger. Not that more proof is needed, but it's there just the same.