Violence vs. Free Speech

I am saying a civilized discussion has to allow for any/all sides to be represented, and not in a "Kangaroo" court style sanctioned way.
It's fine as a thought experiment, but apart from that scenario, I really struggle to find any part of that particular ideology that could be adequately represented in a civilised discussion. Can you think of one?

It doesn't matter how distasteful I find Nazi ideology (or any other that encourages genocide), the ideas are not what kills people and they need to be fully vetted.
"Distasteful" is one way to put it. I suppose you haven't visited a concentration camp site? If so, I'd be quite surprised that you're prepared to call it only that.
 
It's fine as a thought experiment, but apart from that scenario, I really struggle to find any part of that particular ideology that could be adequately represented in a civilised discussion. Can you think of one?


"Distasteful" is one way to put it. I suppose you haven't visited a concentration camp site? If so, I'd be quite surprised that you're prepared to call it only that.
I suspect you missed my edit of my last post (it did occur well after I posted, so it's understandable).

Second, please do not presume to underestimate my knowledge of Nazi history just because I used the word "distasteful" rather than your adjective of preference. I am not going to dignify your accusation with an answer.

I don't have to include my personal and moral opposition to such ideals and actions in every post discussing freedom of speech and ideas.
 
I suspect you missed my edit of my last post (it did occur well after I posted, so it's understandable).
correct, so here goes:

EDIT: I believe there is a line, but "hate speech" is too nebulous.
I agree, which is why there should be laws to define and deal with the extreme cases.

Any position that explicitly endorses bodily harm is one that should be considered unconstitutional/illegal, etc.
Agreed again, mostly, and the line we can draw is between "heavily implied (but not yet illegal)" and "too heavily implied (and hence illegal)".

However, the importance of maintaining free speech as much as possible is to prevent those who MIGHT be remotely affiliated with others who MIGHT have such a position from having their own, separate views from being discussed.
I agree. Had to read it a few times, but it maes perfect sense.

Case in point: Milo Yiannopoulous. He's not a white supremacist, but he's being (erroneously) linked to them. That's not an indication for his freedom of speech to be revoked.
Sorry, but I don't intend to start following that particular trainwreck of a debate. ;-)

Second, please do not presume to underestimate my knowledge of Nazi history just because I used the word "distasteful" rather than your adjective of preference. I am not going to dignify your accusation with an answer.
Eh? I didn't presume anything and I made no accusation. I asked whether you'd been to one of those sites because the effect of visiting one is, in my experience, quite different from that of books, documentaries and the like. The latter make excellent points about the things that must never happen again, but at Buchenwald and Dachau, I saw the remains of some of those things. Suffice to say that it had a lasting effect.

I don't have to include my personal and moral opposition to such ideals and actions in every post discussing freedom of speech and ideas.
No, but did anyone say you had to? My point is that the horror of German totalitarianism brought about by unlimited hatred is unspeakable. A defence of that ideology has no place in any civilised discussion because the ideology rejects civilisation itself.
 
Last edited:
No, but did anyone say you had to? My point is that the horror of German totalitarianism brought about by unlimited hatred is unspeakable. The ideology has no place in any civilised discussion because it rejects civilisation itself.

Using that same logic Communism should also be banned.
 
Damn I step away for a couple of hours....

As a Russian Jew believe me that I absolutely despise and loathe the Nazi ideology, however I fully support their ability to spew their hateful, idiotic rhetoric as much as they want. The point they will lose any right is when they start taking physical actions.

As far as the German example goes, it's a perfect illustration of how banning 'hate speech' doesn't do anything useful, you still have neo-Nazis and they still have their symbols it's just not the same symbols as before.

- - - Updated - - -

Using that same logic Communism should also be banned.

And anarchism, and libertarianism and just about every religion on top of that.
 
calvinhobbes is against the freedom of speech. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not familiar with that particular senate rule so it's hard for me to comment on this. What I will say, however, is that Lizzie is a POS and I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently but, unfortunately, that's a pipe dream, since MA voters will continue to reelect her.


Take a look in the mirror.
 
Using that same logic Communism should also be banned.
You sound a lot like the German Supreme Court in 1956.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn I step away for a couple of hours....
...and a discussion happens. Not a shock, I hope! ;-)

As a Russian Jew believe me that I absolutely despise and loathe the Nazi ideology
I never doubted it for a second.

however I fully support their ability to spew their hateful, idiotic rhetoric as much as they want.
As I was saying, you don't seem easily impressed by that sort of thing. Others are, thought, and they're the ones from whom we have to defend our democracies.

The point they will lose any right is when they start taking physical actions.
Are you referring to individuals or the "movement", as it were?

As far as the German example goes, it's a perfect illustration of how banning 'hate speech' doesn't do anything useful, you still have neo-Nazis and they still have their symbols it's just not the same symbols as before.
Yes, we do still have neo-Nazis among us and yes, they keep playing cat-and-mouse with the authorities over their symbols. However, they are explicitly banned from spreading the worst of their propaganda in public and as a result, only the most vile of Germans do deny the Holocaust. They have definitely been kept out of the mainstream, which has always been the objective.
 
Last edited:
Do you actually not realize the difference between what I said about Lizzie and calvinhobbes' stance, or are you just trolling and trying to get a rise out of me?




What exactly offends you so much?
 
I don't mind calls for violence being illegal, since that is the real concern. Sadly the ones calling for violence and perpetuating it are the same people who oppose "hate speech". Apparently all you have to do is label someone a "nazi" and then it becomes okay to inflict violence against them. At least that is what we're seeing now. We've had these crazy racists before, but as long as they don't violate anyone's rights or get violent, we put up with their existence. But right now the violence is coming from the other side, making them more of a problem than the filthy racists. Which is pretty damn sad.


tolerance.jpg
 
Last edited:
...and a discussion happens. Not a shock, I hope! ;-)
Just moves hella quick.
As I was saying, you don't seem easily impressed by that sort of thing. Others are, thought, and they're the ones from whom we have to defend our democracies.
But that can be used to justify just about any kind of encroachment on people's rights. All you do is declare a specific group of people as the "enemy of democracy"
Are you referring to individuals or the "movement", as it were?
The former, it's every person's own decision.
Yes, we do still have neo-Nazis among us and yes, they keep playing cat-and-mouse with the authorities over their symbols. However, they are explicitly banned from spreading the worst of their propaganda in public and as a result, only the most vile of Germans do deny the Holocaust. They have definitely been kept out of the mainstream, which has always been the objective.
Sure but they still exist and that's the point I am trying to get at.
 
Cute way of avoiding the question.
What question?

Using that same logic Communism should also be banned.
This is not a question.

You don't answer it then allege I have the opposite opinion I have stated multiple times.
Not at all. My point is that of the two political parties that were banned in this country, one was communist. The other was the "Socialist Reich Party", a Nazi party.
 
What question?


This is not a question.


Not at all. My point is that of the two political parties that were banned in this country, one was communist. The other was the "Socialist Reich Party", a Nazi party.


Yeah that sounds not at all like alleging I was for banning the communist party.

Anyhow, I forgot to add a question mark so I shall ask again: being as Communists have killed over 70 million people (that's over 10 times more than the Nazis), should the Communist Party be banned?
 
Speaking of free speech:

Football fan fined for calling police officer ?dude?

An Austrian football fan has been fined 100 Euros (?85) for calling a police officer ?dude?.

The incident, which took place at a stadium in Pasching, Upper Austria, started when the officer told the fan to take down a banner.

However the fan declined, suggesting that the officer drop the matter. But when he called him ?Oida?, which means dude in Bavarian and Austrian dialect, the fan was arrested.
The officer complained that the fan had behaved disrespectfully towards him and that the familiarity should be treated as a punishable offence.

Rather than accept the fine, the fan took the case to the Regional Court of Appeal, The Local reported.

The fan argued that he was not being abusive, but merely using slang commonplace among young people.

However, following research, the court decided that the term was derived from a word meaning "friend of crony".

This, it said, was unacceptable when speaking to a police officer, who should not be be regarded as a crony of the general public.

Although the judge upheld the conviction and accepted the use of the term "dude" was inappropriate, the fine was quashed and the fan given a warning.

Meanwhile, in America, it is perfectly legal to flip off a cop.
 

FYI: I loathe Tucker Carlson, but this woman, Yvette Felarca, is just amazing!

Americans, why not call the Berkeley Unified School Board @ 510-644-4500 and tell them how proud you are that Martin Luther King Jr Middle School employs a person of such stellar irony integrity?

Sorry, but I don't intend to start following that particular trainwreck of a debate. ;-)
If you agreed with all my previous statements, why can't you then address a specific example of one of them?

Eh? I didn't presume anything and I made no accusation. I asked whether you'd been to one of those sites because the effect of visiting one is, in my experience, quite different from that of books, documentaries and the like. The latter make excellent points about the things that must never happen again, but at Buchenwald and Dachau, I saw the remains of some of those things. Suffice to say that it had a lasting effect.
Your question implies that my viewpoints somehow might be invalid without the necessary exposure to the horrors of Naziism. It is not germane to this discussion, and indulging in this question only deviates from the topic of interest.

No, but did anyone say you had to? My point is that the horror of German totalitarianism brought about by unlimited hatred is unspeakable. A defence of that ideology has no place in any civilised discussion because the ideology rejects civilisation itself.
Not a defence of the ideology itself, but the defence of freedom to peacefully express the ideology.

Freedom of speech has to be absolute. It's the only way to keep it objective and free from interpretation. Once you put qualifiers on it, it becomes subjective, and can therefore be subverted. Proof? Please look at the beginning of this post before I quoted you.

Meanwhile, where are the angry mobs trying to oust this person who actually did advocate for violence against those with a different political ideal?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ent-rep-who-called-for-zionists-to-be-punched

National Post said:
Supporters rally behind McGill student rep who called for Zionists to be punched

MONTREAL ? In this age of trigger warnings and micro-aggressions, a university campus is not where you would expect people to rally behind someone who called for physical violence.

But after McGill University student politician Igor Sadikov last week used Twitter to encourage people to ?punch a Zionist,? supporters have defended him while targeting Jewish students who support Israel.

On Monday, the board of directors of the Students? Society of McGill University (SSMU), on which Sadikov represents Arts students, rejected by a vote of 5-4 a motion calling for his removal from the board.

Students attending an SSMU legislative council meeting last Thursday reported that elected representatives declined to denounce Sadikov but stood by as a Jewish member of the council was singled out for her support of Zionism.

Jasmine Segal, who represents social work students on the council, said she came under attack for qualifying Sadikov?s tweet as hateful.


?Instead of dealing with this important and distasteful issue, supporters from the gallery for (Sadikov) turned the meeting to attack me and request that I be removed as a representative of SSMU due to my faith,? Segal wrote in a Facebook post on Saturday.

?I was left isolated and alone to respond. My fellow representatives sat in silence and permitted this malicious, prejudicial, and unjustified attack to continue.?

The McGill Daily, a student newspaper that has a policy of not publishing Zionist viewpoints, reported that a pro-Palestinian activist complained at the meeting about the presence of Zionists on council.

?Since SSMU has a social justice mandate, why does it allow Zionist councillors on council, when Zionist ideology is inherently (linked to) ethnically cleansing Palestinians?? the activist asked. Instead of addressing Sadikov?s tweet, the question period became a ?heated debate over how exactly to define Zionism, and over who had experienced violence,? the newspaper reported.

Molly Harris, a third-year Arts student who attended the meeting, said she felt targeted as a Jew and a Zionist.

?This tweet and the discourse that followed on Thursday have unleashed a wave of condemnation of Zionists and Jews at McGill and have normalized inciting violence against students who identify as such,? she said by email. ?If anything, I feel more unsafe and more singled out now than I did last week because of the campus groups who have used Sadikov?s tweet as an opportunity to express their anti-Zionist, and often anti-Semitic views.?

She criticized the SSMU for failing to act promptly against Sadikov. In a statement on Saturday, the SSMU executive said it condemns violence and apologized ?if the abilities of any councillor were questioned on the basis of their personal identity? during Thursday?s council meeting.

?The SSMU recognizes that this is an emotional and contentious issue revolving around differing interpretations of historical and cultural contexts,? it said.

McGill?s administration said last week that its disciplinary procedures are confidential but it is ?taking action as required? with respect to Sadikov?s tweet. In a statement Monday addressed to ?the McGill community? and sent to alumni, Suzanne Fortier, the principal, said she was ?shocked? by the offensive tweet. She said McGill ?condemns all expressions of hatred and attempts to incite violence,? but she said the administration does not have the power to intervene in the internal affairs of the SSMU.

Sadikov did not respond to messages seeking comment. On Friday, he wrote on Facebook that he had recently been reminded of tweets he wrote between 2009 and 2012, before he entered university. They contained ?violent slurs and discriminatory remarks targeting racialized people, women, queer people, people with disabilities, and people with mental illness,? he wrote. He said he no longer holds those biases and regrets having written the tweets, which have now been deleted along with the rest of his Twitter account.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of free speech: [...]

In many european countries where insulting someone is a offense (Austria being one of them) the police often react like a bunch of sissies. In Germany you don't even want to say the informal adress "du" instead of the formal "sie" to a cop, not even accidental, because some cops have used that as an excuse to charge people.

On the positive side: There have been trials in Germany that ended quite positive in recent years for using ACAB and Soldiers are Murderers ... both went to the highest german court for a ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court who in both cases pointed out that legally insulting a group of people doesn't allow single members of these groups to pursue the offender. So don't insult a cop in germany, insult ALL OF THEM :D
 
In many european countries where insulting someone is a offense (Austria being one of them) the police often react like a bunch of sissies. In Germany you don't even want to say the informal adress "du" instead of the formal "sie" to a cop, not even accidental, because some cops have used that as an excuse to charge people.

On the positive side: There have been trials in Germany that ended quite positive in recent years for using ACAB and Soldiers are Murderers ... both went to the highest german court for a ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court who in both cases pointed out that legally insulting a group of people doesn't allow single members of these groups to pursue the offender. So don't insult a cop in germany, insult ALL OF THEM :D

So instead of "fuck you pig" you go "fuck all pig ass cops" and get off scott free? Gotta love the "freedom of speech" you guys have...
 
Top