6 ms·
You don't. But you also don't have to listen to them.That's freedom.
by EEMac 4y ago
You don't. But you also don't have to listen to them.That's freedom.
- thebooktocome 4y agoYou do kinda have to reckon with them, somehow, when they start vandalizing electrical substations, forming armed militias, and the like.
- option 4y agothat is clearly not speech.
- jacquesm 4y agoIt never ends with 'just speech'.
- eikenberry 4y agoSure... but that has nothing to do with free speech. They've moved past it into the realm of illegal acts. Which are illegal.
- happyopossum 4y agoBut Free Speech does end with speech - vandalism and terrorism are already illegal, do we really need to prohibit everything that could potentially be a step on the path to illegal acts? That’s getting darned close to precognitive law enforcement…
- epicureanideal 4y agoAlso, a person with crazy ideas with no one to talk to but other similar people due to restrictions on speech and debate is not likely to become MORE sane or LESS resentful.
- jacquesm 4y agoThese are the weirdest strawmen, really.
- jacquesm 4y agoFree speech can be used as the crowbar to motivate enough people to commit acts of vandalism and terrorism. Yes, those are illegal. Do you need something that can prohibit that? If you don't want to have a '6th of January' groundhog day every couple of years then that might make some sense. Let's see what the final outcome of that is. My prediction: if it isn't dealt with forcefully the only thing that will happen is that it will continue until they get it done.
- happyopossum 4y ago~200 years of American history disagrees with your premise that Jan 6th is inevitable ‘every few years’. The problem with deciding that ‘nazis’ don’t deserve free speech is that you won’t always get to decide who is a ‘nazi’ or what ‘nazi’ speech looks like.
- jacquesm 4y agoIn case you failed to notice: the last 8 years have been a very serious departure from the last 200 years as a baseline. Note that the parties that are arguing hardest for free speech are exactly the ones that are the subject of discussion. You might wonder if they have a stake in the outcome of that debate. Personally, I'm not at all concerned that 'the state' will meaningfully abridge my speech (in part because there is no history of them doing that without a very good reason and in part because NL never had absolute free speech to begin with though we do have the concept of 'freedom of opinion'). But I am concerned with the speed with which wannabe Nazi groups and actual Nazi groups are able to convert people en masse to their cause, including voting them into public office where they are already doing damage. If you haven't noticed that then you're forgiven but realize that in many countries this is not just a theoretical debate but harsh reality.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoAnd this is why history keeps repeating itself, everyone thinks it's different this time. Stalin-ism should not be a case study so you can do it right the next time, it should be a warning that you can't, even with the best of intentions.
- dexterdog 4y agoIt rarely ends with anything else. Most people are all talk and will back down if confronted in a nonphysical way. If they are going to resort to fisticuffs they are going to wind up in jail for it.
- jacquesm 4y agoNot when they are in groups. And that's the first thing these people do: get organized so they're not longer just by themselves when aiming for confrontation.
- Quillbert182 4y agoYou keep a close eye on them and then throw them in prison once they commit an actual crime.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoThat’s where the whole metaphor breaks down. Those are actions that law enforcement is supposed to deal with. Any aforementioned bar patron who just let “the Nazis” at the bar exist is in no way culpable for not having stopped them somehow.
- doktrin 4y ago"the cops will protect us against authoritarianism" is quite the sizzling hot take, even by HN standards
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoI don’t understand what you are getting at.
- doktrin 4y agoPreventing literal fascists from seizing power is a collective responsibility that cannot be offloaded - both morally and practically - to any single institution. Especially law enforcement.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y agoThen why not comment with this instead of calling my comment some sizzling hot take? This is far more direct and articulate.
- doktrin 4y agoWhether stated plainly or satirically, the point should honestly be obvious.
- Adraghast 4y agoMe and my friends are not interested in finding a new bar just because of some stranger’s abstract belief that we’re the ones who should leave when a loudmouth Nazi shows up.
- happyopossum 4y agoSo ignore him, call him an a-hole, or get into an argue with him. You don’t need to turn to an authority figure to shut him up.
- int_19h 4y agoThe Nazi bar parable states that you have to immediately kick the guy out, physically, otherwise it quickly "turns into a Nazi bar".
- epicureanideal 4y agoThere’s a difference between being able to speak and being offered common platforms even when they’re available, versus someone loudly disturbing everyone around them repeatedly who did not choose to attend an event, and which is not in a public or semi-public space.
- jhugo 4y agoThe proprietor of the bar isn't required to let them use it as a platform for their ideas, and given that Nazi is not a protected class, they're not required to even let them inside. They can turf this hypothetical Nazi out on the street and let them rant out there.
- 40amxn40 4y agoThere is no such thing as a protected class. You're trying to say "people I agree with".
- jhugo 4y agoWhat? Of course there is, in the United States and many other countries. Protected classes are explicitly defined by the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and others. The bar owner can't refuse entry to a person because they are of a certain ethnicity, for example. But they absolutely can refuse entry to them for being a Nazi, or for any other attribute not protected in law.