4 ms·

So you aren't allowed to speak freely and they are controlling what people can and can't wear? So they do deny freedom of speech and freedom of expression to p

So you aren't allowed to speak freely and they are controlling what people can and can't wear? So they do deny freedom of speech and freedom of expression to people that the government doesn't like (in this case Neo-Nazis). The amount of mental gymnastics people do is astounding.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"So they do deny freedom of speech and freedom of expression to people that the government doesn't like " Of course they do, every state on earth limits freedom of speech. In germany regarding certain topics even more so. But nazis are still allowed to express their ideology. This is a difference to a time, when also this was forbidden. (for example in the NS area)
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "It is very simple really. " Is it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30289162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30289162 You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you? Or about the things I think other people should do to you? (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.) But I actually do think, the limits should be as small as possible and for all I care, the nazis should be free to have their swastikas Tattoo to their front head.
    - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
      > You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you? No. The only concession I would consider is a call to violence if there is an real and immediate threat. Not internet death threats. The second I may concede would be defamation under a very strict standard e.g. You were claiming someone broke a law. > Or about the things I think other people should do to you? People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me. > (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.) If you are talking about the Communists. The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people. Also some of the famines were entirely predictable and in some cases were deliberate.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me." So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? I don't think so. This is the line I mean, which is not at all clear. "The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people." You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources. But you do not have to tell me about pol pot, gulags and co. I am certainly no fan of them either. And like I said, I am not in favor of banning swastikas. Not so much, because some poor nazis are then not free to express their ideology, but because the symbol is way older and was not invented by the nazis, just missused. So I agree, that by the same logic, you would have to ban the hammer and the christian cross with it. Still, the death chambers and the holocaust was very unique in its quantity and quality, so I cannot really stand nazis whining about oppression. I live in a hotspot of them.I know they do it a lot. I also know, they are the first, to supress anything they do not like, if they are in a position of power.
        YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
        > So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? Yes > And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? If people are likely to assault someone because someone else told them over social media. They would have probably done it anyway. > You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... It is literally like the second or third result on DDG.
        ailef 5y ago
        That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source. From the page itself: > Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation. There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition. One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?
kmeisthax 5y ago
If removing threats of violence is considered censorship, then the word "censorship" has no meaning. Think about it: how does censorship really occur? Do governments cast a magic spell that makes it so that the words can't come out of your mouth? No. They threaten violence[0], in order to punish you for saying the thing you don't want to say, which creates a chilling effect. This is no different than what Nazis do - they threaten violence against people whose speech they don't like. At that point, the choice is not between "freedom of speech" and "censorship". It's "censor the Nazi" or "let the Nazi censor everyone else". You must choose the option that preserves the most freedom of speech. And this goes for every other entity that threatens violence - not just Nazis. I'm only mentioning them because we're talking about the German legal conception of freedom of expression. Nobody says "I'm going to kill you" for the sake of it; they say it to terrorize other people into doing things they want, including things like not saying words they don't want spoken. This also goes for threatening violence against groups of people rather than speakers of certain words, and political speech that proposes using the state as a means to do the above. All of that is censorious, and as far as I'm concerned a definition of freedom of speech that does not include freedom from threats of violence is incomplete. That being said, censorship by terrorism should be construed narrowly. One might have thoughts of, say, radical Islamic terrorism while reading the above paragraph. This would be an example of censorious speech. However, ISIS, Boko Haram, and/or the Taliban making use of censorious threats does not mean that the entire religion of Islam is guilty of the same thing. Same thing for Nazis or neo-Nazis - they don't make Christians or neo-pagans valid targets of censorship just because they happen to belong to the same religion. [0] Or at least, some long chain of escalating legalistic rituals that we call a lawsuit, which is backed by the government's monopoly over violence within an area. This is a distinction without a difference.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
  > If removing threats of violence is considered censorship, then the word "censorship" has no meaning. Think about it: how does censorship really occur? Do governments cast a magic spell that makes it so that the words can't come out of your mouth? No. They threaten violence[0], in order to punish you for saying the thing you don't want to say, which creates a chilling effect. This is no different than what Nazis do - they threaten violence against people whose speech they don't like. Denying the holocaust didn't happen isn't a threat of violence. It is saying that something didn't happen. Also a threat of violence has to be credible. > At that point, the choice is not between "freedom of speech" and "censorship". It's "censor the Nazi" or "let the Nazi censor everyone else". You must choose the option that preserves the most freedom of speech. This is a false dichotomy. > And this goes for every other entity that threatens violence - not just Nazis. I'm only mentioning them because we're talking about the German legal conception of freedom of expression. Nobody says "I'm going to kill you" for the sake of it; they say it to terrorize other people into doing things they want, including things like not saying words they don't want spoken. This also goes for threatening violence against groups of people rather than speakers of certain words, and political speech that proposes using the state as a means to do the above. All of that is censorious, and as far as I'm concerned a definition of freedom of speech that does not include freedom from threats of violence is incomplete. Your conception of freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech. It is "freedom to hear things that aren't too unpleasant". As for the the chilling effect might work with some people. It won't work with others. With me it wouldn't work. I would tell them to "fuck around and find out". I won't live in fear.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"So they do deny freedom of speech and freedom of expression to people that the government doesn't like " Of course they do, every state on earth limits freedom of speech. In germany regarding certain topics even more so. But nazis are still allowed to express their ideology. This is a difference to a time, when also this was forbidden. (for example in the NS area)

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
[flagged]
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "It is very simple really. " Is it? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30289162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30289162 You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you? Or about the things I think other people should do to you? (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.) But I actually do think, the limits should be as small as possible and for all I care, the nazis should be free to have their swastikas Tattoo to their front head.
  - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
    > You don't think, there are limits to the things I should be allowed to say about you? No. The only concession I would consider is a call to violence if there is an real and immediate threat. Not internet death threats. The second I may concede would be defamation under a very strict standard e.g. You were claiming someone broke a law. > Or about the things I think other people should do to you? People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me. > (are you aware, that there is a difference btw. between literally killing people and people dying of starvation because of incompetence? Apparently not.) If you are talking about the Communists. The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people. Also some of the famines were entirely predictable and in some cases were deliberate.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me." So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? I don't think so. This is the line I mean, which is not at all clear. "The communists killed and imprisoned a huge number of people." You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources. But you do not have to tell me about pol pot, gulags and co. I am certainly no fan of them either. And like I said, I am not in favor of banning swastikas. Not so much, because some poor nazis are then not free to express their ideology, but because the symbol is way older and was not invented by the nazis, just missused. So I agree, that by the same logic, you would have to ban the hammer and the christian cross with it. Still, the death chambers and the holocaust was very unique in its quantity and quality, so I cannot really stand nazis whining about oppression. I live in a hotspot of them.I know they do it a lot. I also know, they are the first, to supress anything they do not like, if they are in a position of power.
      - YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
        > So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? Yes > And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? If people are likely to assault someone because someone else told them over social media. They would have probably done it anyway. > You claimed they killed more than the nazis. Which is a claim, I heard before quite often, but usually without proper sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... It is literally like the second or third result on DDG.
        ailef 5y ago
        That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source. From the page itself: > Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation. There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition. One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

kmeisthax 5y ago

If removing threats of violence is considered censorship, then the word "censorship" has no meaning. Think about it: how does censorship really occur? Do governments cast a magic spell that makes it so that the words can't come out of your mouth? No. They threaten violence[0], in order to punish you for saying the thing you don't want to say, which creates a chilling effect. This is no different than what Nazis do - they threaten violence against people whose speech they don't like. At that point, the choice is not between "freedom of speech" and "censorship". It's "censor the Nazi" or "let the Nazi censor everyone else". You must choose the option that preserves the most freedom of speech. And this goes for every other entity that threatens violence - not just Nazis. I'm only mentioning them because we're talking about the German legal conception of freedom of expression. Nobody says "I'm going to kill you" for the sake of it; they say it to terrorize other people into doing things they want, including things like not saying words they don't want spoken. This also goes for threatening violence against groups of people rather than speakers of certain words, and political speech that proposes using the state as a means to do the above. All of that is censorious, and as far as I'm concerned a definition of freedom of speech that does not include freedom from threats of violence is incomplete. That being said, censorship by terrorism should be construed narrowly. One might have thoughts of, say, radical Islamic terrorism while reading the above paragraph. This would be an example of censorious speech. However, ISIS, Boko Haram, and/or the Taliban making use of censorious threats does not mean that the entire religion of Islam is guilty of the same thing. Same thing for Nazis or neo-Nazis - they don't make Christians or neo-pagans valid targets of censorship just because they happen to belong to the same religion. [0] Or at least, some long chain of escalating legalistic rituals that we call a lawsuit, which is backed by the government's monopoly over violence within an area. This is a distinction without a difference.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
> If removing threats of violence is considered censorship, then the word "censorship" has no meaning. Think about it: how does censorship really occur? Do governments cast a magic spell that makes it so that the words can't come out of your mouth? No. They threaten violence[0], in order to punish you for saying the thing you don't want to say, which creates a chilling effect. This is no different than what Nazis do - they threaten violence against people whose speech they don't like. Denying the holocaust didn't happen isn't a threat of violence. It is saying that something didn't happen. Also a threat of violence has to be credible. > At that point, the choice is not between "freedom of speech" and "censorship". It's "censor the Nazi" or "let the Nazi censor everyone else". You must choose the option that preserves the most freedom of speech. This is a false dichotomy. > And this goes for every other entity that threatens violence - not just Nazis. I'm only mentioning them because we're talking about the German legal conception of freedom of expression. Nobody says "I'm going to kill you" for the sake of it; they say it to terrorize other people into doing things they want, including things like not saying words they don't want spoken. This also goes for threatening violence against groups of people rather than speakers of certain words, and political speech that proposes using the state as a means to do the above. All of that is censorious, and as far as I'm concerned a definition of freedom of speech that does not include freedom from threats of violence is incomplete. Your conception of freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech. It is "freedom to hear things that aren't too unpleasant". As for the the chilling effect might work with some people. It won't work with others. With me it wouldn't work. I would tell them to "fuck around and find out". I won't live in fear.