5 ms·

>I just cannot believe people can just fly the confederate flag and not be thrown into prison or worse. Same with Nazis. Yeah, this is how things like freedom

>I just cannot believe people can just fly the confederate flag and not be thrown into prison or worse. Same with Nazis. Yeah, this is how things like freedom of expression and free speech clauses to the constitution work, they prohibit imprisoning ("or worse") people for displaying symbols of their preference, just because you don't like them, even if they're racist, as long as they're not actually committing violence against others. Does your "or worse" refer to torturing people for these things perhaps? Congratulations, you're about as shitty as any garden variety authoritarian, racist or not. We have a president doing his best to winnow down the 1st amendment against his particular brand of dislike, and on the other hand idiocies like what you demand doing it from another end. In both cases, emotionally claiming that what they want to restrict is "dangerous". >If a house divided will inevitably fall, then certainly, a house that tolerates people advocating destruction of the house will also fall. If your notion of a house divided means anyone not sharing your worldview then being imprisoned ("or worse"), it's you, or people like you who are really the problem in a country where it's exactly the kind of authoritarian bullshit you vomit that has been largely rejected by centuries of constitutional protections.

notepad0x90 1y ago
Nah, if your freespeech involves treason and rebellion you no longer have rights. No, "worse" meant capital punishment (the universal punishment for that crime). The only good traitor is a dead traitor. Don't betray your country. Don't fly the flags of its enemies. I am fine with a moderate punishment (1-2 years in prison), I just expected society to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. If you conspire to kill someone or rob a bank, that's a conspiracy charge. if you run around dressed and armed like a militia and wearing confederate flags, threatening race wars, then it's free speech. that makes no sense. This isn't an unpopular sentiment outside the US as you think. I like germany's approach to the problem. the punishment isn't severe but just enough. Try the nazi salute in germany or flying the nazi flag and you'll see what happens. Your argument is a logical fallacy (slipperly slope). No, I am not suggesting arbitrary banning of arbitrary symbols and flags I dislike, there is no slippery slope. If an entity is declared an enemy of the united states by the democratically elected government of the united states, then you don't get to fly its flags on american soil without consequence. You don't get to fly ISIS or al-qaeda flags just the same as confederate and nazi flags. I am not against flying random KKK or white supremacist flags (well I am, I just don't think that should be illegal). Displaying symbols or making speech in advocacy of a declared enemy of your country shouldn't be legal. If the checks and balances of government allow Trump to declare an entity enemy of the state then yeah, you can't fly their flags either. That's how democracy works, don't elect people who are not trustworthy. The constitution is not a religion and freedom of speech means nothing without a stable country to administer it. Being intolerant to some speech is necessary for the preservation of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say anything without consequence (can't yell fire in a crowd, I'd say rebellion is worse than that!). Treason and rebellion is worse than mass murder! that's our disconnect. you see it as an opinion, I see it as something so horrific that I wouldn't be all that upset if the person's precious life (and even in case of murder I don't support capital punishment, except for extreme cases) was taken from them. War and the death of millions of innocents is what I equate treason and rebellion with, and not just death but so much human suffering that lasts decades (see the misery of post-civil-war reconstruction!).
- ok_dad 1y ago
  > Nah, if your freespeech involves treason and rebellion you no longer have rights Do that and you can guarantee that it’ll be used against you. I abhor people who fly those flags, I’ll personally stomp their faces, but the government shouldn’t be allowed to stop them or else your run into the issue of what treasonous speech is. I firmly believe the people (society in general) should hold all of the power when it comes to policing speech.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    Like I said, this isn't arbitrary, if I start flying the flags of my country's enemies, then like any other law it should apply to me. Who gets to decide who the enemy is? The democratically elected legislators and officials. Plenty of countries with better free-speech and free-press protections than the US ban things like this, holocaust denial, etc... it isn't a slippery slope. Either you have faith in democracy or you don't.
    - ghushn3 1y ago
      Right now, the 'enemies' of the democratically elected leaders are Democrats and Socialists. You think jail time for being a member of the DSA is reasonable? That's democracy working as intended? (That said, the US is not a democracy, and it's really important to remember that, because we do value some votes more highly than others and put significant barriers in place to prevent everyone from voting.) That's not a slippery slope, the admin is on the record saying that socialists are their enemies. I don't want to give them the power to go after anyone who might be a socialist. Especially when they are carting people off to death camps in foreign countries.
      - notepad0x90 1y ago
        Sorry for ignorance but I have no idea what the DSA is. That said, you hit it on the nail when you said the US isn't a democracy. that's only half way true but let's fix that! If the we're not a democracy then free speech still means nothing either way. US citizens are being abducted and disappeared in broad daylight, what free speech do you have when that can happen to you? But if democracy is working right, and that is the premise I made my original statement under, and we owe allegiance to our country than explicit and outright betrayal of your country isn't free speech. it is exactly what it is and should be treated as such. Anything short of that falls under the half-measure bucket I mentioned earlier. It is nursing a festering wound until it causes sepsis and kills the whole body. I would even argue that the loss of democracy you're talking about has to do with the culture of half-measures. Protests that affect or risk nothing, people being outraged but not acting on it (voting or more). Tolerating nazis under "free speech" is why there are nazis running the country right now. These people should have been buried under prisons a long time ago.
threatofrain 1y ago
We can look to German society for an alternative balance on the principles of free speech and Nazism. Germany isn't doing too bad as a society in terms of individual liberty and prosperity. One might argue they're better governed than any particular state in the US, or the US overall. Germans also understand Nazis better than the US and they decided their democracy doesn't need it.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  Modern Germany has its fair share of problems with how the state can define permitted speech and use it to censor selectively. Since the legacy of the Nazi era is still there, along with the legacy of the Stasi era, German society and government are generally careful to not go overboard on certain things, but this would apply either way. Does anyone really think that the only thing stopping the resurgence of Nazism is a law prohibiting swastikas and certain kinds of speech? No, it's a general social tendency towards avoiding strong authoritarian trends, based on some of the worst historical experience possible. In essence, these laws don't really "help" anyhow in terms of stopping any serious movement toward extremism, while on the other hand sometimes selectively being used to censor in completely nonsensical ways. Also worth noting, historically, it was exactly a fear of letting deeply hated ideological enemies of the country's conservative elements that caused the Weimar conservatives to make justifications for censoring ideologically opposed viewpoints and "protecting the nation" against their definition of treason through laws that created loopholes for authoritarian control. This very same perceived need led them to an alliance with the Nazis and the formation of the Hitler cabinet of 1933, after which the much more extreme Hitler used the same legal loopholes -so easily exploitable by serious authoritarians- to completely destroy the Weimar Republic and all of its existing political, social and individual freedoms. The so-called paradox of tolerance is bullshit. It was specifically intolerance and legal mechanisms for its expression against supposedly extreme viewpoints, that destroyed Weimar Germany and led to Nazi Germany. I have yet to see a country where too much free expression leads to more repression. The exact opposite is the case everywhere you look. Politicians and ideologues establish "reasonable" limits on extremist speech and later expand those ever more censoriously as they redefine extremism or treason to include anything that supposedly divides the nation, ie: goes against their views of a unified political system.

notepad0x90 1y ago

Nah, if your freespeech involves treason and rebellion you no longer have rights. No, "worse" meant capital punishment (the universal punishment for that crime). The only good traitor is a dead traitor. Don't betray your country. Don't fly the flags of its enemies. I am fine with a moderate punishment (1-2 years in prison), I just expected society to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. If you conspire to kill someone or rob a bank, that's a conspiracy charge. if you run around dressed and armed like a militia and wearing confederate flags, threatening race wars, then it's free speech. that makes no sense. This isn't an unpopular sentiment outside the US as you think. I like germany's approach to the problem. the punishment isn't severe but just enough. Try the nazi salute in germany or flying the nazi flag and you'll see what happens. Your argument is a logical fallacy (slipperly slope). No, I am not suggesting arbitrary banning of arbitrary symbols and flags I dislike, there is no slippery slope. If an entity is declared an enemy of the united states by the democratically elected government of the united states, then you don't get to fly its flags on american soil without consequence. You don't get to fly ISIS or al-qaeda flags just the same as confederate and nazi flags. I am not against flying random KKK or white supremacist flags (well I am, I just don't think that should be illegal). Displaying symbols or making speech in advocacy of a declared enemy of your country shouldn't be legal. If the checks and balances of government allow Trump to declare an entity enemy of the state then yeah, you can't fly their flags either. That's how democracy works, don't elect people who are not trustworthy. The constitution is not a religion and freedom of speech means nothing without a stable country to administer it. Being intolerant to some speech is necessary for the preservation of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say anything without consequence (can't yell fire in a crowd, I'd say rebellion is worse than that!). Treason and rebellion is worse than mass murder! that's our disconnect. you see it as an opinion, I see it as something so horrific that I wouldn't be all that upset if the person's precious life (and even in case of murder I don't support capital punishment, except for extreme cases) was taken from them. War and the death of millions of innocents is what I equate treason and rebellion with, and not just death but so much human suffering that lasts decades (see the misery of post-civil-war reconstruction!).

ok_dad 1y ago
> Nah, if your freespeech involves treason and rebellion you no longer have rights Do that and you can guarantee that it’ll be used against you. I abhor people who fly those flags, I’ll personally stomp their faces, but the government shouldn’t be allowed to stop them or else your run into the issue of what treasonous speech is. I firmly believe the people (society in general) should hold all of the power when it comes to policing speech.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  Like I said, this isn't arbitrary, if I start flying the flags of my country's enemies, then like any other law it should apply to me. Who gets to decide who the enemy is? The democratically elected legislators and officials. Plenty of countries with better free-speech and free-press protections than the US ban things like this, holocaust denial, etc... it isn't a slippery slope. Either you have faith in democracy or you don't.
  - ghushn3 1y ago
    Right now, the 'enemies' of the democratically elected leaders are Democrats and Socialists. You think jail time for being a member of the DSA is reasonable? That's democracy working as intended? (That said, the US is not a democracy, and it's really important to remember that, because we do value some votes more highly than others and put significant barriers in place to prevent everyone from voting.) That's not a slippery slope, the admin is on the record saying that socialists are their enemies. I don't want to give them the power to go after anyone who might be a socialist. Especially when they are carting people off to death camps in foreign countries.
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Sorry for ignorance but I have no idea what the DSA is. That said, you hit it on the nail when you said the US isn't a democracy. that's only half way true but let's fix that! If the we're not a democracy then free speech still means nothing either way. US citizens are being abducted and disappeared in broad daylight, what free speech do you have when that can happen to you? But if democracy is working right, and that is the premise I made my original statement under, and we owe allegiance to our country than explicit and outright betrayal of your country isn't free speech. it is exactly what it is and should be treated as such. Anything short of that falls under the half-measure bucket I mentioned earlier. It is nursing a festering wound until it causes sepsis and kills the whole body. I would even argue that the loss of democracy you're talking about has to do with the culture of half-measures. Protests that affect or risk nothing, people being outraged but not acting on it (voting or more). Tolerating nazis under "free speech" is why there are nazis running the country right now. These people should have been buried under prisons a long time ago.

threatofrain 1y ago

We can look to German society for an alternative balance on the principles of free speech and Nazism. Germany isn't doing too bad as a society in terms of individual liberty and prosperity. One might argue they're better governed than any particular state in the US, or the US overall. Germans also understand Nazis better than the US and they decided their democracy doesn't need it.

southernplaces7 1y ago
Modern Germany has its fair share of problems with how the state can define permitted speech and use it to censor selectively. Since the legacy of the Nazi era is still there, along with the legacy of the Stasi era, German society and government are generally careful to not go overboard on certain things, but this would apply either way. Does anyone really think that the only thing stopping the resurgence of Nazism is a law prohibiting swastikas and certain kinds of speech? No, it's a general social tendency towards avoiding strong authoritarian trends, based on some of the worst historical experience possible. In essence, these laws don't really "help" anyhow in terms of stopping any serious movement toward extremism, while on the other hand sometimes selectively being used to censor in completely nonsensical ways. Also worth noting, historically, it was exactly a fear of letting deeply hated ideological enemies of the country's conservative elements that caused the Weimar conservatives to make justifications for censoring ideologically opposed viewpoints and "protecting the nation" against their definition of treason through laws that created loopholes for authoritarian control. This very same perceived need led them to an alliance with the Nazis and the formation of the Hitler cabinet of 1933, after which the much more extreme Hitler used the same legal loopholes -so easily exploitable by serious authoritarians- to completely destroy the Weimar Republic and all of its existing political, social and individual freedoms. The so-called paradox of tolerance is bullshit. It was specifically intolerance and legal mechanisms for its expression against supposedly extreme viewpoints, that destroyed Weimar Germany and led to Nazi Germany. I have yet to see a country where too much free expression leads to more repression. The exact opposite is the case everywhere you look. Politicians and ideologues establish "reasonable" limits on extremist speech and later expand those ever more censoriously as they redefine extremism or treason to include anything that supposedly divides the nation, ie: goes against their views of a unified political system.