3 ms·

I can tell you’ve never read the constitution and any of the founding documents. The US makes a point that even nazism is allowed to be discussed here. Or was u

I can tell you’ve never read the constitution and any of the founding documents. The US makes a point that even nazism is allowed to be discussed here. Or was until very recently. It has at times been stripped away, but the ideals are always something to strive for

joshuamorton 5y ago
This is not a thoughtful reply to the parent. He's correct, and doesn't mention Naziism at all.
- lettergram 5y ago
  I guess I disagree? I was pointing out that throughout the history of the United States it’s actively supported discussion of topics disallowed elsewhere; including nazism which is banned as “hate speech” throughout the rest of the west. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    But being able to discuss Naziism isn't free speech absolutism. You admit that your "absolutist" views are far beyond what the US protects, and so the US today isn't a free speech absolutist nation, despite having what are probably the most significant speech protections of any nation in history. Parents point remains true.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I can point to three separate 1919 USSC court cases alone that blow a giant hole in your theory. What YOU think is free speech in this country didn't actually even begin to exist until 1969. It's a fun delineation. In 1968, the banning of draft card burning was ruled to not be a denial of speech rights. In 1969, black armbands were allowed as political speech for the first time and the KKK was allowed to preach in favor of violence as long as they didn't specifically mention when or where the violence was gonna happen. The modern interpretation of what constitutes free speech in this country is less than 60 years old. We're less than 80 years from another case where they ruled that kids had no choice but to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just because you have this pipe dream of the US being founded by some infallible saints doesn't mean they weren't a bunch of selfish pricks who were interested in protecting their own interests.
- lettergram 5y ago
  It depends on which of the founders you read, it was always hotly contested and depending who was in power pre-1830 which policies were followed. I agree after the civil war free-speech was effectively eroded. BUT as you pointed out free speech started to be reconstituted after WWII. I personally would argue free speech started to degrade again in the 90's and has continued until today. It's an ebb and flow, largely based on politics at the time. That said, it's also not uniform across the country.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    It didn't "start to be reconstituted" after WWII. It literally didn't exist in its modern form until the civil rights movement and the liberalization of the Court. The idea that it's "started to degrade again" is ridiculous. We even allow money to be speech now.

joshuamorton 5y ago

This is not a thoughtful reply to the parent. He's correct, and doesn't mention Naziism at all.

lettergram 5y ago
I guess I disagree? I was pointing out that throughout the history of the United States it’s actively supported discussion of topics disallowed elsewhere; including nazism which is banned as “hate speech” throughout the rest of the west. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/sk...
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  But being able to discuss Naziism isn't free speech absolutism. You admit that your "absolutist" views are far beyond what the US protects, and so the US today isn't a free speech absolutist nation, despite having what are probably the most significant speech protections of any nation in history. Parents point remains true.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

I can point to three separate 1919 USSC court cases alone that blow a giant hole in your theory. What YOU think is free speech in this country didn't actually even begin to exist until 1969. It's a fun delineation. In 1968, the banning of draft card burning was ruled to not be a denial of speech rights. In 1969, black armbands were allowed as political speech for the first time and the KKK was allowed to preach in favor of violence as long as they didn't specifically mention when or where the violence was gonna happen. The modern interpretation of what constitutes free speech in this country is less than 60 years old. We're less than 80 years from another case where they ruled that kids had no choice but to recite the pledge of allegiance. Just because you have this pipe dream of the US being founded by some infallible saints doesn't mean they weren't a bunch of selfish pricks who were interested in protecting their own interests.

lettergram 5y ago
It depends on which of the founders you read, it was always hotly contested and depending who was in power pre-1830 which policies were followed. I agree after the civil war free-speech was effectively eroded. BUT as you pointed out free speech started to be reconstituted after WWII. I personally would argue free speech started to degrade again in the 90's and has continued until today. It's an ebb and flow, largely based on politics at the time. That said, it's also not uniform across the country.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  It didn't "start to be reconstituted" after WWII. It literally didn't exist in its modern form until the civil rights movement and the liberalization of the Court. The idea that it's "started to degrade again" is ridiculous. We even allow money to be speech now.