3 ms·

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt: > When the Naz

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt: > When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. Sounds like you are on the side of the nazi's, given that you support abolishing civil rights.

ivan_gammel 6y ago
It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying is that freedom of speech is not absolute and dogmatic American constitution is wrong about it. Human rights exist only in society and the society not just defines them, but also constrains them. There’s no property rights on uninhabited island or freedom of speech in an empty room where there’s no one to talk to. But where property rights exist because there are people who agreed to recognize them, there are also trespassing laws: the freedom of movement is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. And property rights themselves are constrained: you cannot use your land to stockpile nuclear waste and sometimes you have to mow your lawn. There’s no reason to assume that freedom of speech should not be constrained in a similar way. The dogma is based on an assumption that any constraint to this freedom may lead to tyranny. The historical evidence, including your example, shows that this protection of freedom is not efficient and quite often can be harmful, enabling extremists to build up the foundation to seize the power.

3 ms·

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt: > When the Naz

by DreamScatter 6y ago

ivan_gammel 6y ago
It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying is that freedom of speech is not absolute and dogmatic American constitution is wrong about it. Human rights exist only in society and the society not just defines them, but also constrains them. There’s no property rights on uninhabited island or freedom of speech in an empty room where there’s no one to talk to. But where property rights exist because there are people who agreed to recognize them, there are also trespassing laws: the freedom of movement is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. And property rights themselves are constrained: you cannot use your land to stockpile nuclear waste and sometimes you have to mow your lawn. There’s no reason to assume that freedom of speech should not be constrained in a similar way. The dogma is based on an assumption that any constraint to this freedom may lead to tyranny. The historical evidence, including your example, shows that this protection of freedom is not efficient and quite often can be harmful, enabling extremists to build up the foundation to seize the power.