3 ms·

Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments. It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive gove

Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments. It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
The downvotes are telling. Is HN becoming 4chan?
- howard941 7y ago
  The downvotes are too easy. They should cost karma.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  Disagreeing with your statement is not the same as agreeing with holocaust denial.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
leftyted 7y ago
There are many arguments for freedom of speech. One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers. The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. Suuure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
  - leftyted 7y ago
    I find it unlikely that a tiny minority that most Americans find utterly repulsive could "create a new oppressive government". It's like being worried that a UFO cult will take over the country.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      After they've spent two years consuming the various conspiracy theories recycled ad nauseam by Maddow et al., they're primed to believe lots of stuff.
RankingMember 7y ago
When you start to add conditions/exceptions to free speech, it ceases to be free speech. Unpopular speech, however painful/nauseating, is explicitly protected in the U.S. If all speech was agreeable, there'd be no need for free speech laws.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  This is false. There are many laws preventing different types of speech. For example death threats. Or sexual harassment. The list goes on.
  - j8014 7y ago
    Yes, targeting individuals by telling them you are going to kill them is not protected by the first amendment lol It has nothing to do with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Freedom of speech is specifically meant to protect citizens from oppressive governments. It is not meant to help holocaust deniers create a new oppressive government.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

The downvotes are telling. Is HN becoming 4chan?

howard941 7y ago
The downvotes are too easy. They should cost karma.
RankingMember 7y ago
Disagreeing with your statement is not the same as agreeing with holocaust denial.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

leftyted 7y ago

There are many arguments for freedom of speech. One of the most famous centers around the idea that no one should have the ability to decide what can't be said because that assumes infallability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill#Freedom_of_sp... So, yes, from this perspective, freedom of speech exists to protect Holocaust deniers. The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. I don't think there are very many Holocaust deniers and I also expect that, somewhat unintuitively, banning Holocaust denial would create more neo-nazis. Banning an idea confers a certain amount of glamour.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> The idea that the Holocaust deniers will "create a new oppressive government" seems extremely paranoid to me. Suuure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
- leftyted 7y ago
  I find it unlikely that a tiny minority that most Americans find utterly repulsive could "create a new oppressive government". It's like being worried that a UFO cult will take over the country.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    After they've spent two years consuming the various conspiracy theories recycled ad nauseam by Maddow et al., they're primed to believe lots of stuff.

RankingMember 7y ago

When you start to add conditions/exceptions to free speech, it ceases to be free speech. Unpopular speech, however painful/nauseating, is explicitly protected in the U.S. If all speech was agreeable, there'd be no need for free speech laws.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
This is false. There are many laws preventing different types of speech. For example death threats. Or sexual harassment. The list goes on.
- j8014 7y ago
  Yes, targeting individuals by telling them you are going to kill them is not protected by the first amendment lol It has nothing to do with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."