10 ms·

> 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 n

by adekok 9y 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".

pjc50 9y ago
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.
- pluma 9y ago
  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).
SwellJoe 9y ago
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.
- vidarh 9y ago
  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.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    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?
    - beaconstudios 9y ago
      > Neo-Nazi groups are organizing and training for the violent overthrow of the US government to institute a white ethno-state. Is this actually happening? Asking genuinely as a Brit who's vaguely aware of the militia movement but not of any militant Nazi training camp regime.

by adekok 9y ago

pjc50 9y ago

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.

pluma 9y ago
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).

SwellJoe 9y ago

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.

vidarh 9y ago
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.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  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?
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    > Neo-Nazi groups are organizing and training for the violent overthrow of the US government to institute a white ethno-state. Is this actually happening? Asking genuinely as a Brit who's vaguely aware of the militia movement but not of any militant Nazi training camp regime.