10 ms·

This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech. Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas?

This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech. Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter.

sampo 9y ago
> Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? If you resort to fascist techniques, then fascist ideas clearly have taken hold.
- MollyR 9y ago
  Fascist techniques won't stop it then, it will only amplify them. The fascist kind of suppressing (usually disagreements with the establishment or status quo) speech usually ends in violence and revolution.
IBM 9y ago
Germany does have a good record with the former considering that they've completely denazified themselves while remaining a liberal democracy. The fact is that Germany is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the libertarians of Silicon Valley. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.
- everdev 9y ago
  Walking in any major city in Germany you can find young neo-Nazis. I would agree that they are good at clamping down on any symbolism, but the ideas are unfortunately still there.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - steveeq1 9y ago
    I can just as easily say "walking in any major US city, you can find young male black thugs. . ." And then use that as a justification to ban many rap lyrics on the basis of "hate speech".
- kansface 9y ago
  Do you find this statement convincing at all? The fact is that the US is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the far left of the Bay. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    You mean the US where overly racist behavior by the police does not raise eyebrows?
    - grzm 9y ago
      There is plenty of often strong discussion regarding the police and race in the United States and by US residents on HN. While they may not be raised high enough to satisfy you, to claim that this "does not raise eyebrows" is naive or disingenuous and needlessly inflammatory.
- nailer 9y ago
  Germany generally has more members of the far right than than the UK and France, despite having laws against expressing these ideas.
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    Also these have been shown that they have a solid power block of around 40 % in society, the illusion of some outliers, that can be put back into the box wont take hold once more. The outrage powering the likes of the AFD is partially due to hundreds robbed of their ability to articulate their opinions while being declared non existent or terrorists by media campaigns. The dschinn is out of the lamp and all of polishing and rubbing wont house him again. All that remains is housing this political opinions in a party that slowly civilizes them - by taking them serious where they have a base and taking them apart, where science can come to the rescue. Until recently the left had for uncomfortable questions no decent answer except loud screams. A recent article here on HN, which explained why cultures with entrenched polygamy are prone to more instability. Instead of taking this and running with it, trying to stabilize North africa and taking a teeth from the racists- the usual subjects where found and rallied against. This sort of laws do not protect civilization, they hide a problem, and prevent its resolution in debate. Not accepting cultures who obviously are erroding democratic societys (like runaway exponential captialism or islam/ extremist christianity) has nothing to do with racism or foreignfear. Its valid critique- and a society should be allowed to demand the removal of commendments/indoctrinations of cultures who have such a history. The stomach can not be allowed to dissolve itself. To clarify, the member of the culture is still part of the society and citizen, in my eyes -unless he explicitly chooses his believe over his citizenship - and a "paradise" on earth exists. Then he/she/it is free to migrate to whatever statefull-dystopia or tax-free-heaven promises ascension.
MikkoFinell 9y ago
Fascists aren't what they used to be. They used to be a far-right fringe, but fascism lately is more of a thing on the left.
- drb91 9y ago
  This is crap and a lazy claim. In the US, for instance, fascist tactics from democrats appear to originate from neo-liberals (Clinton, Obama) rather than leftists (Warren, Sanders, Stein). If you squint, you can see that capitalism and regulatory capture have always been core to fascism. Neither are leftist values at all. If you're obliquely referring to, err, recent "PC" culture, that seems to share a lot more with puritan culture than a form of government.
  - drb91 9y ago
    Note, i do realize Stein is not a democrat, but leftist she is.
  - MikkoFinell 9y ago
    What about the trend of shutting down or outright physically attacking speakers at collage campuses lately? I'd call that using violence to suppress politically opposing opinions, and it's something that you will exclusively see leftist do against speakers they disagree with. Or concepts such as the Progressive Stack, where people are discriminated against based on race and gender, in other words literally racism. Or any of the other crazy ideas coming out of social justice these days.
- krona 9y ago
  If you're interested in developing that line of thought, I suggest reading Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning which is well researched and deeply insightful.
  - drb91 9y ago
    Thank you for the recommendation! It seems like a much better illustration than I’ve seen before of this direction of argument.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech Two societies chose different paths, each--in my opinion--appropriate for their circumstances. In America, we have the First Amendment. In Germany, they have Volksverhetzung [1]. The problem is Twitter, Facebook, et al think shipping information across borders is the same as shipping boxes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
dilap 9y ago
There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.
- everdev 9y ago
  It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to: If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war. When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    It was much more than just speech which caused all that.
  - gaius 9y ago
    If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectual Or 00’s Tripoli with free healthcare and education ...
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    If you think people could be so easily corrupted by someone's speech on Twitter, then how can you have faith in democracy? I understand keeping young, impressionable minds from bad influence, but what about voting age people?
  - nine_k 9y ago
    It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda alone the role of the fire starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized the absolute power. If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech “Criminalizing speech” by itself isn't a particularly fascist technique, since it's been done by movements all over the political spectrum, starting long before fascism. Fascism (in the broad sense) isn't really defined much by technique (you could perhaps credit Naziism or Italian Fascism specifically with some techniques, like the distinct propaganda approach of the Nazis, but even that isn't as distinguishing as the ideological goals of the movement.)
abiox 9y ago
> criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  The thing is it does work. Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. It's the difference between having to enumerate all the people the mob think should be dead (which ironically is probably a collection of disjointed sets) vs just waving a flag and gathering all that hate anyone. By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The question is whether it doesn't just mean that new icons are created - or old ones repurposed.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways. > By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point. i don't see how. all this means is that people will use allusions, metaphors or otherwise use substitutes for that 'icon', whatever it is. or even just endorse similar policies, concepts or other things. or instead of being against x, they'll be for y. etc. the real way to "stop" ideas (rather, the way to sway the majority of people) is showing why an idea isn't great and presenting a better idea. with logic and reason.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Shivetya 9y ago
everything becomes hate speech when a third party is involved and it is the third party which has to pay the fine. these companies have little choice but to err on the side of caution. haters can spread hate with near impunity because someone else is paying the price if they don't act fast enough to remove it
drngdds 9y ago
Criminalizing speech isn't inherently fascist. It's not really new, either. Most liberal democracies have anti-hate-speech laws and they've never lead to anything resembling fascism. (Besides, banning libel and true threats is also criminalization of speech. That's not fascism, is it?)
Razengan 9y ago
> the moral dilemma Why is it so hard to codify “Don’t be a dick to anyone” into a law? (non-rhetorical question)
- sintaxi 9y ago
  It already is, just some people want want to extend the law to force people to think & behave the way they want them to. American law covers everything necessary for every individual to live a civilized life where they can pursue happiness and meaning as they choose to define it.
  - averagewall 9y ago
    I think hate speech is a bit like drink driving. Perfectly harmless itself but can cause follow-on real world problems that do impact people's lives - ie discrimination in hiring/etc.
  - Razengan 9y ago
    Can see that happening right here; some people have been downvoting and flagging this comment thread, even though it doesn’t break any rules as far as I can see. Why stifle discussion like this? Don’t let HN become like Reddit where the downvote button is basically “I don’t like this.”
- stronglikedan 9y ago
  The short answer: because "be(ing) a dick" is highly subjective.
  - Razengan 9y ago
    Apparently every law is highly subjective. We have, to simplify, “Do not murder.” but it’s waived for militaries and law enforcement. When even the taking of life doesn’t have uniform laws applicable in all cases, why make blanket rulings on speech?
guelo 9y ago
fascism != authoritarianism fascism == authoritarianism && nationalism && racism Censorship is done by authoritarians of all stripes.
wnkrshm 9y ago
There is a philosophical argument to be made that absolute tolerance leads to the abolishment of tolerance: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." (from Karl Popper, more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) I myself do not like the law because it places the responsibility of deletion into the hands of the platforms, which is IMO something that a court of law should decide. If a court is too slow maybe they need to establish a new branch of justice for things like this and actually employ more people.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  But does Popper's standard apply to anything in contemporary Germany? Does AfD come even close to "denouncing all argument;". I mean beyond the mere fact that, like all politicians, they like to talk in meaningless ways. It seems that by the time Popper's argumentkicks in, the offending speech needs to come very close to the "incitement of violence" standard that everyone already agrees is not protected by free speech. Popper's argument would also have force in brainwashing type situations like the Jonestown cult. But any action taken against such groups can be based in terms of the rights of individual members to hear people other than the preacher, not on the silencing the preacher.
yakitori 9y ago
> Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? Free speech exists to protect speech when fascists take hold. It's why no matter who is president of the US, we can spew all the hate we want. Unlike in germany where speech is dependent on who is in charge. If fascists take over and then decide anti-fascist speech is hate speech, then germans are screwed. Whereas in america, if fascists take over, they are screwed because we have free speech in america. > The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter. Germany doesn't have a good track record because they always had "hate speech" laws. Hitler was able to censor everything because the german government always had the the power to censor "hate speech". Hitler would never had been able to do what he did if the german government didn't have powers to shut down all political parties and censor all "hate speech". Imagine if we had a culture of censorship in the US and hate speech was banned. Then trump become president and his government decides anything critical of trump is hate speech.

sampo 9y ago

> Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas? Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? If you resort to fascist techniques, then fascist ideas clearly have taken hold.

MollyR 9y ago
Fascist techniques won't stop it then, it will only amplify them. The fascist kind of suppressing (usually disagreements with the establishment or status quo) speech usually ends in violence and revolution.

IBM 9y ago

Germany does have a good record with the former considering that they've completely denazified themselves while remaining a liberal democracy. The fact is that Germany is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the libertarians of Silicon Valley. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.

everdev 9y ago
Walking in any major city in Germany you can find young neo-Nazis. I would agree that they are good at clamping down on any symbolism, but the ideas are unfortunately still there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- steveeq1 9y ago
  I can just as easily say "walking in any major US city, you can find young male black thugs. . ." And then use that as a justification to ban many rap lyrics on the basis of "hate speech".
kansface 9y ago
Do you find this statement convincing at all? The fact is that the US is the perfect counterpoint to the, frankly tired, slippery slope arguments made by the far left of the Bay. And I enjoy seeing them try to explain it.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  You mean the US where overly racist behavior by the police does not raise eyebrows?
  - grzm 9y ago
    There is plenty of often strong discussion regarding the police and race in the United States and by US residents on HN. While they may not be raised high enough to satisfy you, to claim that this "does not raise eyebrows" is naive or disingenuous and needlessly inflammatory.
nailer 9y ago
Germany generally has more members of the far right than than the UK and France, despite having laws against expressing these ideas.
- Pica_soO 9y ago
  Also these have been shown that they have a solid power block of around 40 % in society, the illusion of some outliers, that can be put back into the box wont take hold once more. The outrage powering the likes of the AFD is partially due to hundreds robbed of their ability to articulate their opinions while being declared non existent or terrorists by media campaigns. The dschinn is out of the lamp and all of polishing and rubbing wont house him again. All that remains is housing this political opinions in a party that slowly civilizes them - by taking them serious where they have a base and taking them apart, where science can come to the rescue. Until recently the left had for uncomfortable questions no decent answer except loud screams. A recent article here on HN, which explained why cultures with entrenched polygamy are prone to more instability. Instead of taking this and running with it, trying to stabilize North africa and taking a teeth from the racists- the usual subjects where found and rallied against. This sort of laws do not protect civilization, they hide a problem, and prevent its resolution in debate. Not accepting cultures who obviously are erroding democratic societys (like runaway exponential captialism or islam/ extremist christianity) has nothing to do with racism or foreignfear. Its valid critique- and a society should be allowed to demand the removal of commendments/indoctrinations of cultures who have such a history. The stomach can not be allowed to dissolve itself. To clarify, the member of the culture is still part of the society and citizen, in my eyes -unless he explicitly chooses his believe over his citizenship - and a "paradise" on earth exists. Then he/she/it is free to migrate to whatever statefull-dystopia or tax-free-heaven promises ascension.

MikkoFinell 9y ago

Fascists aren't what they used to be. They used to be a far-right fringe, but fascism lately is more of a thing on the left.

drb91 9y ago
This is crap and a lazy claim. In the US, for instance, fascist tactics from democrats appear to originate from neo-liberals (Clinton, Obama) rather than leftists (Warren, Sanders, Stein). If you squint, you can see that capitalism and regulatory capture have always been core to fascism. Neither are leftist values at all. If you're obliquely referring to, err, recent "PC" culture, that seems to share a lot more with puritan culture than a form of government.
- drb91 9y ago
  Note, i do realize Stein is not a democrat, but leftist she is.
- MikkoFinell 9y ago
  What about the trend of shutting down or outright physically attacking speakers at collage campuses lately? I'd call that using violence to suppress politically opposing opinions, and it's something that you will exclusively see leftist do against speakers they disagree with. Or concepts such as the Progressive Stack, where people are discriminated against based on race and gender, in other words literally racism. Or any of the other crazy ideas coming out of social justice these days.
krona 9y ago
If you're interested in developing that line of thought, I suggest reading Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning which is well researched and deeply insightful.
- drb91 9y ago
  Thank you for the recommendation! It seems like a much better illustration than I’ve seen before of this direction of argument.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> This is exactly the moral dilemma with free speech vs hate speech Two societies chose different paths, each--in my opinion--appropriate for their circumstances. In America, we have the First Amendment. In Germany, they have Volksverhetzung [1]. The problem is Twitter, Facebook, et al think shipping information across borders is the same as shipping boxes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

dilap 9y ago

There's no dilema. It's just an excuse for control. Letting Nazis speak will not actually convert modern society into Nazis.

everdev 9y ago
It happened 70 years ago. Obama has a good line, something similar to: If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectuals you may have been forgiven for thinking that wonderful setting would continue on forever. Unfortunately, a short time later millions we're dying on a continent engulfed in war. When the stock market is up we think it'll keep going up. When we have peace we can't imagine war. History is not a straight line and destructive ideas can still take hold in the wrong conditions.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  It was much more than just speech which caused all that.
- gaius 9y ago
  If you were in a restaurant in 1930s Vienna surrounded by great art, music and intellectual Or 00’s Tripoli with free healthcare and education ...
- threatofrain 9y ago
  If you think people could be so easily corrupted by someone's speech on Twitter, then how can you have faith in democracy? I understand keeping young, impressionable minds from bad influence, but what about voting age people?
- nine_k 9y ago
  It would be naive to ascribe Nazi propaganda alone the role of the fire starter in WWII. The problem is that the Nazi propaganda fell on ears that eagerly wanted to believe it, so the Nazi leader was democratically elected before he seized the absolute power. If Nazi propaganda might have any noticeable success in today's Germany (or US, or wherever), it's not because of some crackpots from stormfront; they are a consequence, not the cause. The cause should be addressed instead, first by assuming its existence. (No, I'm not going to discuss any probable causes here; I'm trying to show the logic, not to make a political case.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Do you use fascist techniques like criminalizing speech “Criminalizing speech” by itself isn't a particularly fascist technique, since it's been done by movements all over the political spectrum, starting long before fascism. Fascism (in the broad sense) isn't really defined much by technique (you could perhaps credit Naziism or Italian Fascism specifically with some techniques, like the distinct propaganda approach of the Nazis, but even that isn't as distinguishing as the ideological goals of the movement.)

abiox 9y ago

> criminalizing speech to stop the spread of fascist ideas i wonder... is that actually something that works? or does it just mean fascist ideas gain a more polite presentation?

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
The thing is it does work. Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. It's the difference between having to enumerate all the people the mob think should be dead (which ironically is probably a collection of disjointed sets) vs just waving a flag and gathering all that hate anyone. By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The question is whether it doesn't just mean that new icons are created - or old ones repurposed.
- abiox 9y ago
  > Because it forces the rotten core of the ideas to the forefront. it seems to me it would do the opposite. it simply requires that one pursue the same goal in a more polite manner, to avoid being put in prison for one's words. ideas and intents can be rendered in a vast array of ways. > By criminalizing specific icons of hate, you can rob those who would build a following from using them as a rallying point. i don't see how. all this means is that people will use allusions, metaphors or otherwise use substitutes for that 'icon', whatever it is. or even just endorse similar policies, concepts or other things. or instead of being against x, they'll be for y. etc. the real way to "stop" ideas (rather, the way to sway the majority of people) is showing why an idea isn't great and presenting a better idea. with logic and reason.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Bigotry is not a reasonable attitude, and you can't reason someone out of an attitude they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Shivetya 9y ago

everything becomes hate speech when a third party is involved and it is the third party which has to pay the fine. these companies have little choice but to err on the side of caution. haters can spread hate with near impunity because someone else is paying the price if they don't act fast enough to remove it

drngdds 9y ago

Criminalizing speech isn't inherently fascist. It's not really new, either. Most liberal democracies have anti-hate-speech laws and they've never lead to anything resembling fascism. (Besides, banning libel and true threats is also criminalization of speech. That's not fascism, is it?)

Razengan 9y ago

> the moral dilemma Why is it so hard to codify “Don’t be a dick to anyone” into a law? (non-rhetorical question)

sintaxi 9y ago
It already is, just some people want want to extend the law to force people to think & behave the way they want them to. American law covers everything necessary for every individual to live a civilized life where they can pursue happiness and meaning as they choose to define it.
- averagewall 9y ago
  I think hate speech is a bit like drink driving. Perfectly harmless itself but can cause follow-on real world problems that do impact people's lives - ie discrimination in hiring/etc.
- Razengan 9y ago
  Can see that happening right here; some people have been downvoting and flagging this comment thread, even though it doesn’t break any rules as far as I can see. Why stifle discussion like this? Don’t let HN become like Reddit where the downvote button is basically “I don’t like this.”
stronglikedan 9y ago
The short answer: because "be(ing) a dick" is highly subjective.
- Razengan 9y ago
  Apparently every law is highly subjective. We have, to simplify, “Do not murder.” but it’s waived for militaries and law enforcement. When even the taking of life doesn’t have uniform laws applicable in all cases, why make blanket rulings on speech?

guelo 9y ago

fascism != authoritarianism fascism == authoritarianism && nationalism && racism Censorship is done by authoritarians of all stripes.

wnkrshm 9y ago

There is a philosophical argument to be made that absolute tolerance leads to the abolishment of tolerance: "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." (from Karl Popper, more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) I myself do not like the law because it places the responsibility of deletion into the hands of the platforms, which is IMO something that a court of law should decide. If a court is too slow maybe they need to establish a new branch of justice for things like this and actually employ more people.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
But does Popper's standard apply to anything in contemporary Germany? Does AfD come even close to "denouncing all argument;". I mean beyond the mere fact that, like all politicians, they like to talk in meaningless ways. It seems that by the time Popper's argumentkicks in, the offending speech needs to come very close to the "incitement of violence" standard that everyone already agrees is not protected by free speech. Popper's argument would also have force in brainwashing type situations like the Jonestown cult. But any action taken against such groups can be based in terms of the rights of individual members to hear people other than the preacher, not on the silencing the preacher.

yakitori 9y ago

> Or do you simply hope fascist ideas don't take hold? Free speech exists to protect speech when fascists take hold. It's why no matter who is president of the US, we can spew all the hate we want. Unlike in germany where speech is dependent on who is in charge. If fascists take over and then decide anti-fascist speech is hate speech, then germans are screwed. Whereas in america, if fascists take over, they are screwed because we have free speech in america. > The former is a scary slippery slope but Germany doesn't have a great track record with the latter. Germany doesn't have a good track record because they always had "hate speech" laws. Hitler was able to censor everything because the german government always had the the power to censor "hate speech". Hitler would never had been able to do what he did if the german government didn't have powers to shut down all political parties and censor all "hate speech". Imagine if we had a culture of censorship in the US and hate speech was banned. Then trump become president and his government decides anything critical of trump is hate speech.