4 ms·
So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence. I'm all for free speech, but for s
by Joeri 9y ago
So, of I understand this correctly, it's not the message they consider not to be free speech but the (inciting of) violence.
I'm all for free speech, but for some messages there's just no context in which they ever become anything but harmful, and maybe dogmatically clinging to free speech isn't the best way to approach things. Then again, it can be a slippery slope towards thought police, so maybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure.
- dmitrygr 9y agomaybe it's best to leave the judging of those messages to social pressure. I REALLY hope that that's a joke. Social pressures brought you ACTUAL Nazi Germany and ACTUAL Communist revolutions in multiple countries. Scary...
- wooter 9y agoabsolutely not. all of those ACTUAL horrible situations involved gross disdain for 1st Amendment principles
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tunesmith 9y agoI think the Supreme Court has ruled on similar questions, in that there's a distinction between how the "speech" is intended and how it is construed. For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. In that sense it would be protected speech, despite how I feel. So the question becomes how do you determine if someone is intending to incite violence? They might say they are only wanting to express their first amendment rights (and perhaps their second amendment rights at the same time), while actually just intending to incite violence. Even pretending that none of the neonazi protesters in Charlottesville threw the first punch, I think a lot of the quotes from Charlottesville indicated that many of them were on the wrong side of that line, and were seeking to incite.
- Deestan 9y ago> For instance, someone waving a nazi flag might feel to me like an incitement to violence, while to them it might feel like an expression of free speech, with no intention to incite violence. Disregarding how you both feel about it, waving a nazi flag legitimizes and strengthens an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing. Intent - real or pretend - doesn't matter.
- bloobloobloo 9y agoNeat. Curious to hear your position on waving Communist and Jewish flags.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoIs Jewishness "an inherently violent ideology of ethnic cleansing"? For that matter, is Communism? Marxist-Leninist governments don't have a great track record, but there are plenty of individual pacifist hippie commies; the ideology of common ownership of production is not inherently violent and racist like Nazism and the Klan are.
- CodeWriter23 9y agoI'm sure not all Jews condone the ethnic cleansing going on in the West Bank and Gaza. But I kinda think some people see the Israeli flag in the same light as Jews see the Nazi flag. And yes, I am speaking as a Jewish man. You might want to check your Russian History, particularly Stalin's era, to examine the violence inherent to the ideology of common ownership, when applied Soviet style. Scholars debate on whether he killed 8 million or 60 million...
- lostlogin 9y agoIf anyone is after anything on the topic, please try The Court of the Red Czar or The Young Stalin. Both by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Ironically a Jew with interesting views on Zionism and an excellent history of Jerusalem. The Radio New Zealand interview with him below covers his views on Zionism briefly. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2474733/simon-sebag-montefiore-jerusalem http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/...