4 ms·

I wonder if this will be a wake-up call to those people on the left in the US who have been doubting the value of the First Amendment. It's ironic to me that ma

by scythe 9y ago

I wonder if this will be a wake-up call to those people on the left in the US who have been doubting the value of the First Amendment. It's ironic to me that many of the people saying Nazi/KKK symbols should be illegal "like in Germany" because of "incitement" are the same people saying things like "punching Nazis is cool"; how is that not incitement? Things like this are an inevitable consequence of losing the bright-line rule against censoring ideas.

geofft 9y ago
What I have heard from Germans is that it's pretty easy to be a neo-Nazi and convey neo-Nazi ideas in Germany, you just have to not use Nazi symbols. Don't call yourself a Nazi, just mumble something about patriotism and history, and don't use the swastika, and the government won't do anything. So I'm not sure that the bright-line rule has really been lost in Germany. (I'd appreciate being corrected about this by Germans if I have my facts wrong!)
- majewsky 9y ago
  > and the government won't do anything Actually, chances are that the government funds you. I don't have a source at hand right now, but I recall reports that the NPD (the German nationalist party) would have gone bankrupt many times over if it weren't for a substantial number of its members being recruited by the domestic intelligence service as confidential informants, who then donated their informant salaries (or parts thereof) to the party.
- technics256 9y ago
  As an american who lives in Germany, this couldn't be farther than the truth from anything that I have seen. I have seen much more racism and bigotry in my homeland than anything from the west to the former east. There exist bad elements in all societies; what I have seen is that German society as a whole has learned and tried to better themselves from the atrocities of their past - while it is unfortunately still strong in America. My best friends come from the "neo nazi" working class hotbeds of Leipzig and Dresden. I have never ever seen anything like you mention, ever.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    Roughly the same percentage of people vote for Nazis in Germany as polls say would vote for white supremacists in the United States - a pretty small amount, though the similarity in percentages does call into question the effectiveness of limits on speech.
- scythe 9y ago
  >What I have heard from Germans is that it's pretty easy to be a neo-Nazi and convey neo-Nazi ideas in Germany, you just have to not use Nazi symbols. Don't call yourself a Nazi, just mumble something about patriotism and history, and don't use the swastika, and the government won't do anything. In other words, Germany's laws are dumb, because they don't actually slow down neo-Nazis and simply criminalize people for using pictures.
emn13 9y ago
Incitement to violence isn't necessarily protected speech in the US. The boundary is of necessity vague. IMNSHO: arguing that free speech should be absolute is almost tantamount to arguing it is irrelevant. Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful? Then clearly that power can be used - and abused. Thus to argue that it is right to never constrain speech implies you either believe it is of no consequence; or believe harm is good (i.e. are malicious or insane); or believe enforcement is impossible or counter-productive. A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated. Heck, it's not like this is the only exception... libel, fraud, and a variety of IP laws all suggest a long history of consistently democratically-backed infringements to free speech. Were our ancestors all crazy?
- ameister14 9y ago
  Yes, if you advocate specific acts of violence to an audience that you reasonably believe will carry out those acts, that might be illegal speech.
  - emn13 9y ago
    Yep. And a whole host of other speech is illegal too. And the world isn't failing quite yet. And I have no doubt that the precise details of exactly where you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not isn't always going to make a huge difference; nor do I have any evidence that whatever happens to be the law in the US is likely to be optimal if indeed these difficult tradeoffs must be made. In short: merely yelling "free speech!" doesn't really resolve anything. Might as well yell "free noise!", at least that way there's truth in advertising.
    - scythe 9y ago
      The standard set by SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges was "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.". This itself comes from the "compelling government interest" standard which is related to the ideal of "strict scrutiny". I would say that the problematic suggestions coming from the American left have related to crossing out the word "imminent" in that standard. The problem is that when the standard is so expanded it stifles the expression of emotions and values. Ideas are not powerful, at least in my telling; "ideas are powerful" is usually a statement by someone selling ideas, by which I mean selling magazines. What is powerful are the emotional connections that bind people to ideas and through ideas bind people together into groups and movements. These are not so easily banned and must be exposed in order to be dealt with. I'm sorry I called you a fascist earlier. Today has been stressful.

by scythe 9y ago

geofft 9y ago

What I have heard from Germans is that it's pretty easy to be a neo-Nazi and convey neo-Nazi ideas in Germany, you just have to not use Nazi symbols. Don't call yourself a Nazi, just mumble something about patriotism and history, and don't use the swastika, and the government won't do anything. So I'm not sure that the bright-line rule has really been lost in Germany. (I'd appreciate being corrected about this by Germans if I have my facts wrong!)

majewsky 9y ago
> and the government won't do anything Actually, chances are that the government funds you. I don't have a source at hand right now, but I recall reports that the NPD (the German nationalist party) would have gone bankrupt many times over if it weren't for a substantial number of its members being recruited by the domestic intelligence service as confidential informants, who then donated their informant salaries (or parts thereof) to the party.
technics256 9y ago
As an american who lives in Germany, this couldn't be farther than the truth from anything that I have seen. I have seen much more racism and bigotry in my homeland than anything from the west to the former east. There exist bad elements in all societies; what I have seen is that German society as a whole has learned and tried to better themselves from the atrocities of their past - while it is unfortunately still strong in America. My best friends come from the "neo nazi" working class hotbeds of Leipzig and Dresden. I have never ever seen anything like you mention, ever.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Roughly the same percentage of people vote for Nazis in Germany as polls say would vote for white supremacists in the United States - a pretty small amount, though the similarity in percentages does call into question the effectiveness of limits on speech.
scythe 9y ago
>What I have heard from Germans is that it's pretty easy to be a neo-Nazi and convey neo-Nazi ideas in Germany, you just have to not use Nazi symbols. Don't call yourself a Nazi, just mumble something about patriotism and history, and don't use the swastika, and the government won't do anything. In other words, Germany's laws are dumb, because they don't actually slow down neo-Nazis and simply criminalize people for using pictures.

emn13 9y ago

Incitement to violence isn't necessarily protected speech in the US. The boundary is of necessity vague. IMNSHO: arguing that free speech should be absolute is almost tantamount to arguing it is irrelevant. Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful? Then clearly that power can be used - and abused. Thus to argue that it is right to never constrain speech implies you either believe it is of no consequence; or believe harm is good (i.e. are malicious or insane); or believe enforcement is impossible or counter-productive. A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated. Heck, it's not like this is the only exception... libel, fraud, and a variety of IP laws all suggest a long history of consistently democratically-backed infringements to free speech. Were our ancestors all crazy?

ameister14 9y ago
Yes, if you advocate specific acts of violence to an audience that you reasonably believe will carry out those acts, that might be illegal speech.
- emn13 9y ago
  Yep. And a whole host of other speech is illegal too. And the world isn't failing quite yet. And I have no doubt that the precise details of exactly where you draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not isn't always going to make a huge difference; nor do I have any evidence that whatever happens to be the law in the US is likely to be optimal if indeed these difficult tradeoffs must be made. In short: merely yelling "free speech!" doesn't really resolve anything. Might as well yell "free noise!", at least that way there's truth in advertising.
  - scythe 9y ago
    The standard set by SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges was "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.". This itself comes from the "compelling government interest" standard which is related to the ideal of "strict scrutiny". I would say that the problematic suggestions coming from the American left have related to crossing out the word "imminent" in that standard. The problem is that when the standard is so expanded it stifles the expression of emotions and values. Ideas are not powerful, at least in my telling; "ideas are powerful" is usually a statement by someone selling ideas, by which I mean selling magazines. What is powerful are the emotional connections that bind people to ideas and through ideas bind people together into groups and movements. These are not so easily banned and must be exposed in order to be dealt with. I'm sorry I called you a fascist earlier. Today has been stressful.