6 ms·

Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi

Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.

ckozlowski 11y ago
The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
icanhackit 11y ago
To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
- Scarblac 11y ago
  Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
  - darkmarmot 11y ago
    Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
    - Scarblac 11y ago
      I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
      - zo1 11y ago
        "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        It is an arbitrary line and drawing such line would probably be a risky proposition in US, but it works in Europe because it's a Schelling point. Openly endorsing Nazi Party ideology through symbolism was forbidden immediately after the war for obvious reasons (and I seriously doubt that anyone in the still burning Europe really protested), and those symbols still bring bad memories to people - so the law kind of stuck. So yes, this sounds like a slippery slope, but in that case Europeans have a Schelling fence on it. See [0] for a more detailed take on the whole topic. For our purposes though, the money quote: "In the original example with the alien, I cheated by using the phrase "right-thinking people". In reality, figuring out who qualifies to join the Right-Thinking People Club is half the battle, and everyone's likely to have a different opinion on it. So far, the practical solution to the coordination problem, the "only defensible Schelling point", has been to just have everyone agree to defend everyone else without worrying whether they're right-thinking or not, and this is easier than trying to coordinate room for exceptions like Holocaust deniers. Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any... ...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it. There are also a host of other well-respected exceptions to free speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Presumably, these exemptions are protected by tradition, so that they have become new Schelling points there, or are else so obvious that everyone except Holocaust deniers is willing to allow a special Holocaust denial exception without worrying it will impact their own case." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo...
ta0967 11y ago
I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.
hospes 11y ago
Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?

ckozlowski 11y ago

The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.

icanhackit 11y ago

To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.

Scarblac 11y ago
Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
- darkmarmot 11y ago
  Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
    - zo1 11y ago
      "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        It is an arbitrary line and drawing such line would probably be a risky proposition in US, but it works in Europe because it's a Schelling point. Openly endorsing Nazi Party ideology through symbolism was forbidden immediately after the war for obvious reasons (and I seriously doubt that anyone in the still burning Europe really protested), and those symbols still bring bad memories to people - so the law kind of stuck. So yes, this sounds like a slippery slope, but in that case Europeans have a Schelling fence on it. See [0] for a more detailed take on the whole topic. For our purposes though, the money quote: "In the original example with the alien, I cheated by using the phrase "right-thinking people". In reality, figuring out who qualifies to join the Right-Thinking People Club is half the battle, and everyone's likely to have a different opinion on it. So far, the practical solution to the coordination problem, the "only defensible Schelling point", has been to just have everyone agree to defend everyone else without worrying whether they're right-thinking or not, and this is easier than trying to coordinate room for exceptions like Holocaust deniers. Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you've committed to, if any... ...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they've banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone's been totally okay with it. There are also a host of other well-respected exceptions to free speech, like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Presumably, these exemptions are protected by tradition, so that they have become new Schelling points there, or are else so obvious that everyone except Holocaust deniers is willing to allow a special Holocaust denial exception without worrying it will impact their own case." [0] - http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo...

ta0967 11y ago

I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.

hospes 11y ago

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?