Comment by adekok
9 years ago
> A white supremacist killed someone at the weekend for protesting. If their free speech gives you supreme confidence, then you are simply wrong.
The GP said no such thing. He talked about speech, and you changed the subject to violence.
If the white supremacists limited themselves to speech, then yes... their free speech should be protected. And, it serves as an indicator that we truly have free speech.
The whole point of free speech is to give freedom to views you disagree with. The alternative is the Soviet Union / North Korea bullshit of "everyone has free speach, but only one viewpoint is allowed".
No, the alternative is Germany: a wide range of viewpoints are allowed, but actual Nazism isn't, because last time it was allowed millions died.
Not everything is an excluded middle, a bi-directional slippery slope that has to end up at one extreme or the other.
FWIW Germany still allows for parties like the NPD (Nationalist Party of Germany), DVU (German People's Union), REP (The Republicans) and AfD (Alternative for Germany) to exist, despite having pretty strict laws about actual nazis.
The NPD is closely tied to neo-nazis and always on the verge of being banned.
The DVU was almost identical but much smaller and eventually merged with them in 2011 after several alliances.
The Republicans are a more moderate right-wing anti-immigration party that is mostly insignificant.
The AfD are populist nationalists (similar to UKIP) who try to keep some distance to actual neo-nazis but share many of the same ideas and affiliations (although much less prominently than the NPD does). They currently hold 24.4% of votes in Saxony-Anhalt, 20.8% in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and are represented in every state parliament except Hesse (as of 2013, though that might change with the upcoming election this year).
I think on an absolute spectrum the AfD is the closest thing Germany has to the US Republican party but most Germans consider the AfD literal nazis (albeit in sheep's clothing).
The problem with discussing Neo-Nazis in terms of free speech is that violence is their core value. They are explicitly, and not even secretly, organizing for the violent overthrow of the US government to impose a white ethno-state. If the President helps them along, all the better from their perspective, but they are not organizing to give speeches, they are organizing and training to commit mass murder.
The problem with that is where you draw the line, as most will simply learn which words not to utter and will signal their support in other ways.
Sure, that's a discussion worth having. But, I think it should be in terms of how we end white supremacist violence, and not in terms of how we defend white supremacists up to the point where they commit violence.
I'm not suggesting white supremacists don't, or shouldn't, have freedom of speech. But, unless you're also suggesting that Al Qaeda, Daesh, ISIS, whatever, should be able to hold recruiting rallies across the US as long as they aren't commiting violence at the rally, I think we probably agree that there are and should be limits to free speech if the speech is an incitement to violence.
Neo-Nazi groups are organizing and training for the violent overthrow of the US government to institute a white ethno-state. Right wing extremists are responsible for more terrorist attacks in the US than any other group (including Muslim extremists). Without acknowledging the violent nature of these organizations, we can't have a useful discussion about where the line is drawn.
That Al Qaeda can't get a permit for a rally tells us there is a line. So, why do we let Nazis step way past that line over and over?
2 replies →
That's not the problem, that's the point. Sadly, those words inspire and convince some people. Words are how they recruit. I fail to see how how people fail to see this. Limiting the spread of such hateful ideologies is, IMO, a good thing. The government cannot take action to limit their speech in the US because of the first amendment. Which is probably, on balance, a good thing. Thus, it is up to citizens to to both condemn and take (peaceful) action -- such as not doing business with them -- to limit the spread of hateful ideologies.
> violence is their core value.
There are many groups which are accused of having violence as their core value.
e.g. The Nazi attacks on the Jews, who were alleged to be dedicated to the destruction of the Aryan race. That allegation was used as justification for "self defense", and attacking all Jewish people.
I understand where you're coming from, but we've seen what happens when people start picking and choosing which speech is allowed, and which is forbidden. The end result is the violence and genocide that they claim to hate.
Really? You're now saying people who oppose literal, self-proclaimed, Nazis, are just like Nazis. That takes incredible mental acrobatics.
5 replies →