5 ms·

> I am surprised that otherwise well intentioned people appear to be missing this insight. Because it's plain false. One of the lessons learned from the Weimar

> I am surprised that otherwise well intentioned people appear to be missing this insight. Because it's plain false. One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. It is false because certain types of calls for violence and hate speech have the uncanny ability to mobilize people who would otherwise never think of being violent. There are psychological reasons why otherwise normal people can be drawn fairly easily to violence and de-humanizing their opponents. With a few well-designed suggestions at the right time you can easily cause lynchings like in the Reichskristallnacht. Generally speaking, people in democratic societies far overestimate the force of their society's civility and culture. It takes but a scratch on the surface of society, and a threshold is reached that leads to a reign of terror. A recent example is the war in former Yugoslavia. Seemingly harmless family fathers in an advanced society started to torture opponents to death by raping them with steel pipes until they died of inner bleeding. They were encouraged by politicians. Things like that can occur in any country within just a few months of conflict and unhindered "free speech." There are large groups in the US who dream of a violent revolution, openly advocate "race wars", and so on. It's very reasonable to take away their megaphones and social network speech amplifiers.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Number157 6y ago
> One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. That's exactly what the nazis did. // Goodwin
Tomte 6y ago
> that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. A point that cannot be made too often. Additionally, the US military governor banned newspapers and then gave out licenses for publishing newspapers only to people the Americans deemed "politically reliable".
- Synaesthesia 6y ago
  In France nazi memboribilia and imagery are illegal, as is holocaust denial. That's not the case in the USA which protects free speech. What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. I still think the approach to permit free speech is better.
  - Tomte 6y ago
    > What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. Sure, you're laughing about the Proud Boys and the gazillion other armed neonazi groups, until they storm the Capitol. Obviously no problem whatsoever.
    - Synaesthesia 6y ago
      I'm talking about holocaust denial as a serious published phenomenon among intellectuals. Not trying to downplay the serious right wing problem the US has. Sometimes trying to oppress these viewpoints paradoxically doesn't work.
  - Shorel 6y ago
    However, this is not proof that laws limiting free speech are the cause of holocaust denial. It could be the other way around. Therefore places where there's no holocaust denial, need no laws limiting free speech.
refurb 6y ago
Yes, but Germany rides a very fine line and tends to err on the side of not banning speech. A few examples: - HAIG was an association of former Waffen SS members who tried their best to whitewash their past before disbanding. Was not made illegal.[1] - There is a long list of Nazi associated symbols that are illegal and not illegal in Germany. Much effort was made to not blanket ban anything remotely associated with Nazis.[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAG https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAG [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a
wussboy 6y ago
I always try to remember that my brain is essentially the same as the brains of the Auschwitz prison guard’s and that there is nothing special about me that would keep me from doing what they did. It is only civil society that prevents humans from being fully, horrifically, human. Civil society is a rare, most precious gift and it must be preserved.
fareesh 6y ago
This assumes that there is a good faith characterization applied fairly to all speech which calls for violence. What you see in the United States is that this characterization is applied in bad faith based on one's political motives, and ignored in other situations. There appear to be situations where "you need to fight" is taken literally when the speaker is an opponent, and taken metaphorically when the speaker is an ally. This is all happening outside of a legal process, so there is no mechanism to ensure that this is happening according to any standards or principles. If you bring speech laws into the conversation, those are applied within a legal system, which would be designed in some way to prevent the arbitrary application of standards. Charitable interpretations of the words of favoured public figures versus the worst possible interpretation of similar, perhaps even more benign statements, by public figures who are opposed. If there is an intention for laws to police speech, then they ought to be applied fairly, else they are the whims of whomever is in power to apply and enforce them. The media corporations (legacy and new) don't seem to be applying an equal standard to all speakers, which is their right, but it is important to discuss what happens when they exercise their rights in this manner.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Number157 6y ago

> One of the lessons learned from the Weimarer Republic is that a democracy has to defend itself, that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. That's exactly what the nazis did. // Goodwin

Tomte 6y ago

> that's the reason why modern days Germany has - by request and design from the US - laws to limit freedom of speech. A point that cannot be made too often. Additionally, the US military governor banned newspapers and then gave out licenses for publishing newspapers only to people the Americans deemed "politically reliable".

Synaesthesia 6y ago
In France nazi memboribilia and imagery are illegal, as is holocaust denial. That's not the case in the USA which protects free speech. What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. I still think the approach to permit free speech is better.
- Tomte 6y ago
  > What's interesting is that France has a much bigger problem with holocaust denial whereas in the USA its sort of laughed at. Sure, you're laughing about the Proud Boys and the gazillion other armed neonazi groups, until they storm the Capitol. Obviously no problem whatsoever.
  - Synaesthesia 6y ago
    I'm talking about holocaust denial as a serious published phenomenon among intellectuals. Not trying to downplay the serious right wing problem the US has. Sometimes trying to oppress these viewpoints paradoxically doesn't work.
- Shorel 6y ago
  However, this is not proof that laws limiting free speech are the cause of holocaust denial. It could be the other way around. Therefore places where there's no holocaust denial, need no laws limiting free speech.

refurb 6y ago

Yes, but Germany rides a very fine line and tends to err on the side of not banning speech. A few examples: - HAIG was an association of former Waffen SS members who tried their best to whitewash their past before disbanding. Was not made illegal.[1] - There is a long list of Nazi associated symbols that are illegal and not illegal in Germany. Much effort was made to not blanket ban anything remotely associated with Nazis.[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAG https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIAG [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_section_86a

wussboy 6y ago

I always try to remember that my brain is essentially the same as the brains of the Auschwitz prison guard’s and that there is nothing special about me that would keep me from doing what they did. It is only civil society that prevents humans from being fully, horrifically, human. Civil society is a rare, most precious gift and it must be preserved.

fareesh 6y ago

This assumes that there is a good faith characterization applied fairly to all speech which calls for violence. What you see in the United States is that this characterization is applied in bad faith based on one's political motives, and ignored in other situations. There appear to be situations where "you need to fight" is taken literally when the speaker is an opponent, and taken metaphorically when the speaker is an ally. This is all happening outside of a legal process, so there is no mechanism to ensure that this is happening according to any standards or principles. If you bring speech laws into the conversation, those are applied within a legal system, which would be designed in some way to prevent the arbitrary application of standards. Charitable interpretations of the words of favoured public figures versus the worst possible interpretation of similar, perhaps even more benign statements, by public figures who are opposed. If there is an intention for laws to police speech, then they ought to be applied fairly, else they are the whims of whomever is in power to apply and enforce them. The media corporations (legacy and new) don't seem to be applying an equal standard to all speakers, which is their right, but it is important to discuss what happens when they exercise their rights in this manner.