The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Or if they’re invited to speak at events
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square?
* Nazis legal rights should be protected because *everyone's* legal rights should be protected.
* Whether, in an ideal world, we would amend the constitution to account for the paradox of tolerance, is a different question.
* Nevertheless, no one should invite a nazi to speak, nor platform a nazi.
* Also, some people are willing to subject themselves to criminal charges for 'punching a nazi'. They should not expect to be exempt from legal consequences if they choose to do so, but I still understand why they might make that choice.
Nazis have a right to assembly and speech.
The rest of us have a right to assembly and speech to protest these nazis and anyone giving them a platform.
The people giving them a platform are in Congress right now. The way it’s being handled at the moment is not satisfactory. People have made jobs around being Nazis, congresswomen fundraise off of meeting with Nazis, the former president called in Nazis to organize his insurrection.
At what point do we say we want some stronger laws on Nazis?
When you say this, though, people immediately clutch their pearls and freak out about how the Nazis have a right to speak freely.
Germany criminalized Nazism following WWII and it seems to have worked out very well for them.
I would only add that, while it’s extremely important that the law always officially be against punching someone in the face for saying something terribly bigoted or hateful, the citizenry has no obligation to *help* the law in its pursuit.
So while the guy who punched the Nazi in the town square is *officially* a wanted man, it’s perfectly acceptable if no one is willing to come forward and identify or testify.
> ...it’s perfectly acceptable if no one is willing to come forward and identify or testify...
...and it's perfectly acceptable for a juror to refuse to convict him.
It's a tool. It is as bad or good as the jury decides.
It is tool for when the law and the masses are not aligned, and sometimes the masses are bigoted and biased.
Deciding prison sentences (and death sentences) by popular opinion is capricious and a direct violation of 6th amendment rights. Jury nullification is illegal and ought to stay illegal.
This is definitely one of those issues where white people don’t see the harm and are confused why everyone else is nervous about it. Yeah, it’s fucking great when the jury lets you off for pot. Some of us don’t get that privilege though.
>Deciding prison sentences (and death sentences) by popular opinion is capricious and a direct violation of 6th amendment rights.
What is the alternative you're after?
> Jury nullification is illegal and ought to stay illegal.
I'm not sure that's true. [In fact I am pretty sure it's explicitly legal](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/its-perfectly-constitutional-talk-about-jury-nullification) so long as the idea originates from the Jury itself.
>This is definitely one of those issues where white people don’t see the harm and are confused why everyone else is nervous about it. Yeah, it’s fucking great when the jury lets you off for pot. Some of us don’t get that privilege though.
That is a 100% fair criticism of Jury Nullification. Even still, so long as we have juries we will have nullification.
My alternative is to criminalize Nazi groups rather than having people punch them while we all look away for a second.
Ramping up the violence has not done a good job of protecting minorities. Most of the lasting protections have been through politics and the legal system. It’s important to me to keep the rule of law in place. I don’t like the projected outcome if we try to fight this your way.
I thought we were talking about jury nullification?
> My alternative is to criminalize Nazi groups rather than having people punch them while we all look away for a second.
Sure, there are many applicable laws that Nazi Groups (I assume you mean militias and terror cells) break.
>I don’t like the projected outcome if we try to fight this your way.
What’s “my way” you’re talking about here?
Yep there are no moral quandaries with punching a Nazi. Their entire ideology is based on genocide. If that’s not deserving of a punch, I don’t know what is
This pretty much sums it up. Just remember that there's a difference between tolerating speech and tolerating actions. Actions by nazis *must* have a much stronger and opposite reaction. If they exist in peace, they restrict your ability to exist in peace unless you're a nazi.
When the Nazi’s had their rally in Dayton the city kept everyone at least a block away. The counter rallies (at almost every barricade) were beautiful affirmations of the community embracing diversity.
Sometimes it helps to have someone say something horrible. It gives everyone else a reason to say “no, that’s wrong.”
The paradox of tolerance does not mean what progressives keep insisting it means.
It does not mean "We can't tolerate intolerant people.".
It means "The government cannot punish you for speech *unless that speech is advocating for censorship*.".
A resolution to the paradox of tolerane would see the Nazi laughing as you are thrown in prison for this suggestion. I'm super bored of people not understanding it and using it as a justification for censoring intolerant groups.
Germany approached it with "We're a democracy and you can found any political party, except one that seeks to overthrow democracy, you have no right to participate.", thus resolving the paradox of tolerance vis democracy.
I suspect somebody heard "Paradox of tolerance" and then completely failed to understand it, and its just spread to the entire online left by this point and it's both incredibly stupid and incredibly ironic that they go around using it as a justification for censoring people they don't like.
Bros.
You would all be in prison if we actually adopted the policy you are suggesting *because you don't know what the fuck it means*.
>The paradox of tolerance...means "The government cannot punish you for speech *unless that speech is advocating for censorship*.".
Can you back that up with a source?
I'm not aware of this interpretation.
If you don't listen to online nutters it's the *only* interpertation that has a source, because that's how academia engages with the paradox of tolerance. It's limited and specific, not vague "Those guys are intolerant so they shouldn't have free speech." or "Those guys are intolerant so they shouldn't get a political party.". It's about how tolerance along a specific vector allows its own enemies to flourish.
I.E, you have free speech even if you're going around trying to end free speech, thus the "Paradox of tolerance" where it sows the seeds of its own destruction unless you specifically carve out such exceptions, which some countries have in terms of "You can have a political party and run in elections, unless you want to end elections, then you can't", but no country has for free speech because it would see probably the supermajority of the population thrown in prison.
Source 1:
"Popper's Paradox of Tolerance and Its Modification".
Source 2:
Rosenfeld, M. Harvard law review (1987).
Relevant section -> "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who ... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree."
---
The point of the paradox of tolerance is to identify that it is incapable of defending itself from its enemies unless it carves out an exception of this kind. Despite progressives loving to invoke it to criticize the far-right, they would almost certainly not enjoy a regime which decided to take it to heart in its actual academic meaning.
And you can tell this is the case because the alternative is to essentialize and criminalize the person rather than the act, and "We can predict what they're *going* to say, because of the type of person they are" doesn't really fly.
The paradox of tolerance would see a progressive saying "That guy is a nazi, we know he's going to use his platform for hate speech if he gets one, so we should ban him from getting one" and say "You are under arrest for advocation of censorship.".
If the Nazi then goes up there and dogwhistles about genocide there's no issue. If they say "We need to burn the Jewish Books" the paradox looms over him and throws him in the same cell as the progressive. You can't pre-crime an excuse to deny somebody their rights on the basis of what sort of person they are and so you're assuming they're going to do a crime, and if you can't specifically define the criminal act you're even expecting them to do, chances are you're talking out of your arse like most people are when they invoke the paradox of tolerance.
Progressives use it as a vague academic reference in order to say "We don't have to respect the speech rights of people we think are intolerant.".
Bro.
That's *exactly* why a regime that took it seriously would throw most of you in prison. It is not what you think it is. The paradox proposal is there to defend the institution of free speech from those who are enemies of it. Nothing more.
I disagree that a nazis rights should be protected. If your platform requires the subjugation of entire ethnicities than your message does not deserve to see the light of day.
It's a slippery slope and we definitely don't want to embolden our government t to suppress ideas so I don't know what the right answer is. It definitely isn't "keep letting nazis rise to power" though, which has been the approach for the last 70 years.
I firmly believe that tolerance is a big part of the liberal problem. I don't accept nazis. I don't accept racists. I don't accept misogynists. I will never give them the time of day to speak in my presence because I don't think those people are worthy of the air they're stealing, let alone being listened to.
Of course Nazis' free speech rights should be protected. Why should it be up to you who gets to enjoy the blessings of liberty? If you don't think they're worth listening to, then you don't have to listen. But you don't get to tell me that I'm not allowed to.
But if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest?
As in, should they protest, but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly?
> ...if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest?
Nope. Confronting nazis is good.
Protestors should *definitely* do anything within the law to shut down the nazi's speaking event.
They *might* also consider going beyond what is legally allowed (accepting that they are likely to be punished by the law for doing so).
-----------
>...should they protest...
Yes.
>...but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly?
No. It is not their job to assure "the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly".
Devil’s advocate here.
Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference?
Is the only reason why it’s not our job to protect their speech is because we’re right and they’re wrong?
> Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference?
1. Nazis are special. They earned that special status. They did everything they could to establish themselves as *History's Greatest Monsters*, and -- after earning that reputation -- people still join their ranks. It is entirely reasonable to respond to those people differently than one would respond to progressives.
2. Everyone has the same legal rights, including Trump supporters, nazis, and progressives.
3. I would never support Trump supporters interfering with progressive speech, but that does not change their legal rights.
While I would *prefer* that "Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference", I don't expect them to.
-------
> Is the only reason why it’s not our job to protect their speech is because we’re right and they’re wrong?
No. It is not our job because we are not agents of the government.
If you become an agent of the government -- which usually involves an oath to uphold the law -- that might change. A cop, prosecutor, or judge might be obligated to protect their speech; that doesn't mean that *everyone* has to.
>Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference?
Legally yes, but if other people want to shout them down and tell them to fuck off or not support or do business with them then that's also fine, encouraged even
How do we know we’re right and they’re wrong? I’m sure they think their right. Just like we think we’re right.
(obviously this is getting philosophical but I think it’s important to question these things.)
But that’s your, (and my,) opinion. That’s not their opinion. Again, they think they’re right just like we think we’re right. So we’re right because we think we’re right?
I think it’s important because these, “we’re right and they’re wrong” principals can be decimated which shuts down the exchange of ideas which leads to dogmatism and unscientific and illogical views of the world, which eventually leads to more harm.
Flaccid and false. (There is no typo in that sentence.)
As u/othelloinc very eloquently, and correctly, stated in a different comment, Nazis are special because nazis themselves have always, continuously for the entire existence of nazis, *fought long and hard to become special.* Anyone who IS NOW a nazi, and anyone who might someday BECOME a nazi, every single one, with no exceptions of any kind, ALL nazis intentionally decide, every day, that they want nazis to be even more special than they already are.
Nazis have always, every day, anywhere, ever, have ALWAYS fought very long and very hard to BECOME special. Nazis WANTED to engage in literal mass genocide, they WANTED Jews herded into camps, they WANTED those camps to be industrialized killing-machine camps.
And every last nazi, anywhere, at any time during or since, ever, at all, ALL nazis still want (present tense, as in "today they continue to want") for those things to have happened during the Holocaust, and would absolutely endorse the idea of doing it again in the present day.
That is what makes a person a nazi.
Anyone calling themself a nazi who DOES NOT want any portion of those things, I submit, has a moral obligation and DUTY to punch themselves in the face, repeatedly, at full force.
>Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference?
This whole argument really comes down to personal morals and values, since in neither case can the government really step in without violating the First (to my understanding). There's no legal problem if either group tries to interfere with anything, within the confines of the law. However, I'd argue it's more justified to interfere with Nazis than an actual, non-hate-based platform like progressives - just not from a legal standpoint.
I'd say Trump supporters have the right to try and interfere with our free speech as long as it doesn't involve trespassing, violence, or other illegal acts, but we'd have every right to ignore or try to prevent them (knowing the government themselves can't step in and block legal Trump-supporter interference).
> what groups do you define as Nazi
I think this is a discussion that all of us -- as a society -- need to have. It will be unpleasant, but important.
---------
Also, I've begun using the word "*n*azi" (as opposed to "*N*azi").
* If you identify yourself with the Nazi Party and/or its symbols, then all call you a (capital-N) Nazi.
* If you don't, but you happen to share their worldview and policy preferences, I won't hesitate to call you a nazi.
Nazis can speak but it’s the other protestor’s right to shout them down/drown them out/cancel their events. That’s free speech too. Same rules for everyone.
I am not a government. I don't have to abide by their first amendment rights.
I DO have to accept legal consequences for illegal activity. But I definitely don't have to worry about disrupting their event. Fuck Nazis.
If they want to protest city hall, fine. But they better be ok with the consequences for doing so - like using “cancel culture” to get them fired or ostracized. And I’d probably risk a simple assault charge, but that depends entirely on them.
The two good things about the Nazis is they’re the baddies in the best Indiana Jones movies, and a fantastic punk song by the Dead Kennedys, [Nazi punks fuck off.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHLPnGuVSQ)
>But if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest?
No
>As in, should they protest, but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly?
They have no right to shut down the audience. If they need a safe space they should create their own far away from sane people.
The right to free speech doesn't give you the right to a platform. If people don't like what you're saying they are as entitled to protest your speech as you are entitled to speak.
So I think resisting Nazis is an undeniable good.
But since this thread is actually about the thread from yesterday, I think I’ll address why I have differences with some of the people in that thread.
Wee all agree that Nazis are bad and that fascism and authoritarianism are really a risk in the United States right now. I think the difference is that while we agree on that, some of us want to **be right** while the rest of us assume we are right and **want to win**.
The way we win is winning elections and changing minds and changing what is acceptable in social discourse. And if you’re talking to regular people who don’t follow the news that closely I don’t really understand the concept that deeply, constantly screaming not do not do not speak is not an effective strategy. There’s just too many people who think the Nazis are a thing of the past and relevant today only as the villains in Indiana Jones movies and Castle Wolfenstein games.
The number of people that either didn’t already know what a piece of crap that judge is or would quickly read up about him and figure it out is really low. You probably couldn’t fill Yankee Stadium with the number of people that heard about the story and came down on our side. Most people just heard that **tHe LeFt** is shutting down a judge who was invited on campus because **tHe LeFt** just calls everyone a nazi and doesn’t want to listen.
And that’s why they do this stuff. They are playing us. They want to hide behind the concept that we are unreasonable.
We need to pick our battles.
It’s not about that judge. I don’t know who that judge is.
It’s about the free speech absolutism I’m seeing from commenters here and I’m curious how far it extends.
I don’t think they’re hiding. I think we’re just refusing to see them for as they are on a grand scale
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square?
If you mean "the government should not attempt to limit their speech", yes: they have first amendment rights and they can say what they want and not be persecuted by the government.
Does it mean the rest of us have to respect it? No. Those people can be aired out in social media, boycotted, and otherwise discriminated against by every private citizen and company who disagrees with them.
The first amendment protects them from government persecution. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to "respect" it.
Should the government forcibly remove Nazis from public events?
No.
Should we respect Nazis speech by not privately disrupting them, criticizing them, or deplatforming them?
No.
Fascists strive to remove free speech from others for immutable characteristics. Their ideology is inherent incompatible with notions of respect for all people. Tolerating them is to force others to live with their intolerance and the potential dangerous ramifications that come with that.
They should be ridiculed, demonized, and de-platformed in all manners. Hate speech does not deserve protection.
Yeah, if only because setting the precedent that constitutional rights can be curtailed on the basis of political beliefs is the definition of a slippery slope. As long as they aren't saying anything that'd get anyone else shut down by the state for inciting violence etc. then the state shouldn't shut them down.
That said, *shouting* them down through massive protest should absolutely happen every single time any one of them sticks their hate-filled head up out of the slurry of blood and ash which represents the full sum of contributions or accomplishments to which their philosophy (such as it is) can lay claim.
Force them to be police-escorted to and from their soapbox through a vocally angry picket line, drown out their speech with chanting and singing, spread literature debunking common fascist talking points, hold a simultaneous anti-Nazi rally nearby, etc. If they were invited to speak by an organization then boycott and publicly shame that organization, as well as the owners of the venue if that's a different entity.
It's both better for everyone's continued access to freedom of speech and healthier for our societal and cultural development for them to be oppressed and marginalized by the people via grassroots activism rather than the state via a random cop with a court order.
In public? Yes. We should not physically prevent them from speaking.
However, going and counter-protesting and drowning them out is fine.
At private events? That's up to who hosts the event. And people can certainly counter protest that as well.
It is the duty of the *government* to not infringe upon the free speech rights of the people. It is not the duty of the people to do so amongst each other.
We can't let fascists have free reign to assemble unmolested by the public. They got a permit? Great! Break that shit up. They were invited by some other group? Great! Break that shit up. They have a... GREAT! Break. That. Shit. Up.
As long as it isn't the government doing it, then we're golden.
Laws exist for a reason, and that reasons is: to make you think good and hard before you break them.
We are all safer in a world where Nazis do not feel safe to show their colors publicly.
I have a buddy whose dad was a judge and he said something around these lines once,
"If there's a law that you don't agree with, that you think is so unjust that you just can't bring yourself to follow it, then break it. There are unjust laws. But, don't expect society to allow the infraction to go unpunished. The system will work as intended and you should plan accordingly."
The government protecting any group's ability to communicate their message by preventing others from replying isn't respecting rights, it is bestowing a privilege.
As far as the law goes, yes. But actually, no.
I saw a great take on the paradox of tolerance a few days ago: if you consider tolerance as a social contract rather than a contextless moral precept, that paradox disappears. People who don’t abide by the terms of the contract aren’t covered by it, and that’s what the deal is with Nazis.
They should get all the free speech rights that BLM protesters have. Meaning, the police should arbitrarily decide to break up the rally halfway through and then start firing tear gas at them.
The government shouldn’t interfere.
No matter how racist, no matter how sexist, no matter how homophobic or transphobic, people have a right to say what they want without government interference. Because if we start restricting speech, it’s only a matter of time before our own is restricted.
*We* as private citizens however aren’t bound by such restrictions and can tell them to go the hell and offer to send them there quickly if they want to fuck around and find out.
Has right wing extremism increased or decreased? Has the normalizing and platforming of these types helped or hurt society?
You can speak freely, but i don't think genocidal rhetoric is ok. Our society had acknowledged years ago that certain rhetoric is not conducive to public safety. There's things like racial rhetoric being disallowed in public, though not readily enforced. We also have menacing laws in the USA that state that threats of harm are criminal sometimes at the felony level.
What's important to note is that the idea that these things can exist in society with regular liberal ideas is false. We know it's false because the radicals themselves say so. And even our political parties act in this way.
Who's at risk at having their free speech limited? Drag queens or Nazis? Isn't it strange that there's so much effort placed on them when the Nazis whose free speech is our concern have an ideology that is explicitly violent and they are one of the most violent groups in the USA.
On a personal note, when these ideas are allowed in the public square other folks psychological safety is harmed. Their rhetoric simply is harmful. I, myself, have suffered a great deal of anguish and had to seek psychological help for what they say.
Most importantly, their rhetoric eventually leads to action.
If it’s disrespecting their rights to prevent their free speech and assembly, then I mean that. Should we prevent their free speech and assembly, or stand by and respect it
First amendment rights don't exist to prevent other citizens from shutting down speech. They exist to prevent the government from shutting down speech. It's not a social contract between individual citizens. It's a social contract between the governing and the governed. If you think it's disrespectful to interrupt their speech, then don't disrupt it. If others find what they are saying disrespectful, then they are also free to be disruptive.
It’s not disrespecting their right to free speech. In fact, protesting and shouting them down is itself free speech. Generally, people that argue against such protests don’t actually think shutting down certain speech is bad, they just don’t like that speech that they agree with got protested. But they’re cowards that know they’ll get pushback if the tried to argue the unpopular topic, so instead they hide behind the argument about speech and process in an attempt to give those unpopular opinions undeserved respect.
If Germany won't respect them, and with excellent reason, there is absolutely no reason their hatred and vitriol should ever be given a platform here. It will only lead to terrible things.
Come on man you should know better than this. We as citizens cannot infringe on their rights, only the government can. That’s what the Bill of Rights is for.
Yesterday, I read many comments arguing that protesting speakers as colleges to the extent where they cannot give their speeches, is inhibiting their right to free speech.
So I said **if**
The first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech. I have no obligation to respect anyone’s speech. Also, ideologies which preach hate result in violence and I don’t have a problem with the government limiting such dangerous speech. Hitler’ s speech resulted in genocide.
I am not the government, so if I prevent a Nazi from being able to grab a mic or be heard over my sick-ass bass licks, no one's speech is being violated.
The way to shut down nonsense is to allow it to be said as loudly and publicly as possible. Then destroy their hateful rhetoric with logic and empathy. That'll turn alot more people than screaming louder or silencing them. Silencing someone never worked, they just speak and gain supporters in the shadows with no retaliation. The only reason to silence someone is because they're speaking the truth, and the truth hurts your narrative
Everyone has the legal right to speak - even nazis.
*Everybody else* has the legal right to say exactly how they feel about that speech, the people/organizations that gives it a platform, and to choose to consume accordingly.
In other words, we must respect everybody's right to speak. But we are under no obligation to respect what is said, the people saying it, or the people promoting it. You have the right to be free of legal consequences for your speech, but nowhere does it say you have the right to be free of social consequences. You're free to act like a total piece of shit, but everyone else is very much free to treat you like the total piece of shit that you are if you do.
There are multiple questions here, and respect is difficult idea to quantify. That said, I respect the US Constitution. I do not respect Nazis (and some of the other groups that assemble). I do not respect private institutions that pay for or host nazis (among others) to speak. I do not respect using public funds to pay for or host nazis (among others) to speak. And, I respect my rights to protest/assemble/petition for or against any of the above.
I think this depends on what is meant by “respect.”
I think that even Nazis should be able to show up, say what they want and leave without encountering violence or legal ramifications.
I also think we have a responsibility to protest such messages, and be adamant that such views are morally reprehensible.
What do you think about people / groups like Vladimir Putin, the Taliban, and the Chinese Communist Party? I mention those three because they were all given editorial space in the New York Times.
I think a function of the press and academia is to expose the world to what people are thinking. In other words, the editorial pages of the Times are a part of the news. You can open the pages and read about what the Taliban wants in Afghanistan or the CCP’s justification for the HK security law in their own words.
Putin and the CCP, in particular, pose a greater threat to human life today than any Nazi organization does.
I’m not sure how old you are, but when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, major networks often featured neo Nazis or Klansmen on shows like Oprah, Donahue, etc. These were also decades when the American public really began to hold that kind of racism to be completely unacceptable in polite society, meaning those people were rejected as serious political players. Of course racism has evolved and continues to exist in America, but I really think that having those people on TV really showed the public how they think and that they were, basically, fools. Dangerous fools, but fools nonetheless.
I think exposure and indifference is much more effective than the kind of heckling and disruption we see today. That has been the SPLC’s take on Klan rallies for decades. The Proud Boys and other kooks that caused so much violence in Portland specifically chose the city because they knew they would meet the fiercest response there. And they did. It’s a propaganda coup for them. Not only that, a lot of young guys want the violence. It’s kicks for them.
Anyway, interested what you have to think about those meandering thoughts.
The difference now from the 80s and 90s is that nazi/fascist ideas and talking points have been successfully mainstreamed into the Republican party and conservative movement. I still see value in exposing these ding dongs for the idiots they are, but the situation is higher stakes now **and** they've managed to polish up their ideological turds enough for large portions of the public to swallow. Additionally, when you're talking about groups like TPUSA, their events are revenue streams as well. That money goes right back in to funding the overall movement.
As for the PB in Portland. . . the antifascists there are in a catch 22. They know PB and Patriot Prayer and the like fundraise off the videos when they all have a street fight, but if they **don't** come out to fight them, the PB attack homeless people or random citizens. At that point, it's a choice between going out to defend people who **aren't** prepared for PB violence or letting those more helpless people take the assaults.
I'm not sure what the best response is, but these are things people need to think about around this stuff.
The way to counter bad speech and ideas is with more speech and ideas. Protestors can, and should, use their own first amendment rights to counter bad speech. The government, however, cannot and should not shut down speech or expression disliked by those with government power. So, making laws to limit first amendment expression is wrong. Counter-protesting, heckling, etc. by other private citizens, while annoying, is not illegal and is allowed.
> The way to counter bad speech and ideas is with more speech and ideas.
Yep. It's working so well at reforming flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. No way silly beliefs like that can flourish in an environment where every random person has a megaphone.
Bad ideas will always exist and people will always believe them. The goal isn't eradication or reformation because that's impossible. The goal is not to allow the ideas to win the majority in a democracy. It will always be this way.
It didn't used to be this way. People with bad ideas (non-reality-based ideas) used to be confined to small corners of society. This was because there used to be gatekeepers who would prevent many of them from spreading their poisonous message.
Now this didn't work perfectly. Plenty of charlatan psychics and faith healers still got platforms on TV in the 70s. Yet there is no doubt that non-reality-based ideas are able to spread, multiply, and reinforce each other today compared to before the Internet.
That's not to say that the 'era of gatekeepers' didn't have downsides. The democratization of media has had lots of positive effects too. I just don't know how to combat the spread of bad ideas when it's no longer possible to keep them from spreading, nor is it possible to drown them out when people live in echo chambers.
We live in echo chambers because gatekeepers still exist. We are the worst gatekeeper isolating our own selves. We go to places on the internet where mods gatekeep for us. We watch TV that gatekeeps for us. All of us do it. We even do it to create small subcommunities within larger ones - the variation among people generally more liberal here is an example. The internet did connect people, which is great. But, it also allowed us to self-isolate into comfort zones.
I've yet to see any evidence to support the assertion that the "marketplace of free ideas" leads to better outcomes here. Lies, misinformation and disinformation spread so much more easily than rigorously studied and supportable truths do. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle or Brandolini's Law pretty much guarantees the bad information will drastically outnumber the good information. For the majority to reach the correct conclusion, they have to be able to navigate the bullshit and find good sources which show the data and methodology and then they have to be able to read and understand the study. More than half of US citizens read below a 6th grade level. Many people are going to find Susan's anecdote about her cousin's reaction to a vaccination more compelling than looking at any actual data.
From an impact standpoint, there are 15 states that are below 60% vaccination rate.
South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Wyoming.
There are 7 states (plus DC) above 80% vaccination.
District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York
The stupidest states have a structural advantage in our electoral system thus our legislative branch is beholden to their ignorance. Since non-budget legislation requires a super majority, it's literally impossible to make progress in this country while Republicans do their best to ensure their citizens remain ignorant and get more ignorant over time. Putting faith in the average person to be educated enough to seek out and understand nuance is folly.
> “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”
> ~ George Bernard Shaw.
So, what are your proposed solutions? Does it involve using the government to suppress individual rights to free speech? Requiring individuals to be silent and defer to other individuals? Holding certain categories and institutions to higher ethical standards for speech? What is the solution? To me, loudly, repetitively, and consistently refuting harmful information at every opportunity and in every venue by as many individual people as possible is the solution. Bad ideas, even those with good intentions, have and will win again eventually. This is how it has always been and will always be.
I've proposed no solutions. I just think blindly assuming freely sharing ideas leads to the best outcomes absent supporting data is a silly position to have. If this is what works best, demonstrate that. Why should I take it on faith when it's counter to what is seen in reality? What I can say for certain is that [deplatforming works](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-new-data-on-trump-tweets-shows/). It drastically reduces misinformation and disinformation almost immediately. Milo and Alex Jones aren't on social media broadcasting their filth to the world anymore not because other people countered their ideas better, but because they finally went too far and violated the terms of service and got the boot. That's been far, far more effective at shutting down their disinformation than any amount of tweeting back at them did.
Deplatforming by private entities is part of free speech by individuals to shut down bad information. It IS an example of what I am talking about. An individual or entity choosing to use their own freedoms, rights, and powers to combat bad ideas and bad information is how the marketplace if ideas work.
Edit: As much as the right rages about cancel culture, it works also. Telling companies that their support of certain ideas will cost them money and then following through with it, is how freedom of ideas works also. This is a tactic the right used for ages. Boycotts are effective.
If you're including deplatforming as an example of "good speech" which can be used to fight disinformation, then I agree with you. What I'm saying doesn't work to any meaningful degree is refuting nonsense by providing correct information. When "free speech absolutists" both liberal and conservative talk about their market place for ideas, it certainly doesn't include deplatforming as a feature. Quite the opposite, they want prevent companies from being able to moderate content on their own platform. That we just need to use our words to sort out all the disinformation is what I disagree with.
Agreed. To me, countering bad speech with good speech means all individuals and entities use all of their freedoms of speech and choice (and even the workings of capitalism) to counter bad ideas. The government can't do it and will only make bad actors martyrs if they do. But, the rest of us can surely and unequivocally ostracize, isolate, disrupt, deplatform, and dispute all bad ideas within the allowance of the law (or, break the law if you choose, but the consequences are on you.). And, of course they want to use the government to limit the freedoms of others to isolate, ostracize, criticize, deplatform, or disrupt their bullshit. That's what makes them anti-freedom fascists.
I doubt that there have ever been as many people motivated to share their theories on how the earth is truly flat and there is a world wide conspiracy to keep the truth from people than there are today.
I think there is a huge difference between what I would call "innocent ignorance" and "motivated ignorance". Even a few hundred years ago, the information about the shape and size of the world though known, wasn't necessarily widely available to average people. There is nothing wrong or abnormal with being ignorant about things you've not been exposed to before. We are constantly in this state. Where the anti-vaxxers and flat earthers differ is we have made these details widely available as part of a general education and they can be readily observed both historically and empirically. These people aren't just ignorant. They have motivated ignorance where anything which disagrees with them is immediately dismissed regardless of the source. They know that most people don't believe this and they and a small group of brave intellectuals are the only ones in on the secret. They know there is a vast amount of data readily available which easily disproves their beliefs. But all of that is just a giant conspiracy to keep people in the dark. That's extremely different from a villager in England in the 1700's thinking this "world is a sphere" talk is nonsense who neither has access or knowledge to comprehend the data.
What is wrong with that trade off? Education and technology have become so widespread that more and more people have knowledge than at any time before. More speech and ideas have convinced the "innocent ignoramuses" of the reality of a spherical planet earth. The only remaining flat-earthers are a small group of kooks. That's kind of to be expected, isn't it?
I'm not sure. Those kooks didn't really exist or have any meaningful way to share their delusions until the internet existed. They aren't ideological descendants of the villager who had no concept of the idea. They were created in modern times well after general knowledge of the shape of the world was known. My point is this isn't an ever shrinking pool of ignorance. It has absolutely grown in popularity and reach since its inception in 2004. Same with anti-vaccine sentiments. [They have grown](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122668/) and none of the "good speech" prevented that.
> The anti-vaccination movement was most strongly rejuvenated in recent years by the publication of a paper in The Lancet by a former British doctor and researcher, Andrew Wakefield, which suggested credence to the debunked-claim of a connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and development of autism in young children [14]. Several studies published later disproved a causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism [15-18]. Wakefield drew severe criticism for his flawed and unethical research methods, which he used to draw his data and conclusions [19]. A journalistic investigation also revealed that there was a conflict of interest with regard to Wakefield’s publication because he had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers, which he obviously did not disclose to either his co-workers nor medical authorities [20]. For all of the aforementioned reasons, The Lancet retracted the study, and its editor declared it “utterly false” [21]. As a result, three months later, he was also struck off the UK Medical Registry, barring him from practicing medicine in the UK. The verdict declared that he had "abused his position of trust" and "brought the medical profession into disrepute" in the studies he carried out [22].
> Repercussions of declining vaccination rates
> The damage, however, was already done and the myth was spread to many different parts of the world, especially Western Europe and North America. In the UK, for example, the MMR vaccination rate dropped from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In 2003, the rate was as low as 61% in some parts of London, far below the rate needed to avoid an epidemic of measles [23]. In Ireland, in 1999-2000, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin, the level was around 60% [24]. In the US, the controversy following the publication of the study led to a decline of about 2% in terms of parents obtaining the MMR vaccine for their children in 1999 and 2000. Even after later studies explicitly and thoroughly debunked the alleged MMR-autism link, the drop in vaccination rates persisted [25].
> As a result, multiple breakouts of measles have occurred throughout different parts of the Western world, infecting dozens of patients and even causing deaths. In the UK in 1998, 56 people contracted measles; in 2006, this number increased to 449 in the first five months of the year, with the first death since 1992 [26]. In 2008, measles was declared endemic in the UK for the first time in 14 years [27]. In Ireland, an outbreak occurred in 2000 and 1,500 cases and three deaths were reported. The outbreak was reported to have occurred as a direct result of a drop in vaccination rates following the MMR controversy [28]. In France, more than 22,000 cases of measles were reported from 2008 - 2011 [29]. The United States has not been an exception, with outbreaks occurring most recently in 2008, 2011, and 2013 [30-32].
**One** scientist released a bullshit study which lead to vaccination rates plummeting after the disinformation people got their hands on it. It doesn't matter how many people refuted him and showed his study was garbage. Jenny McCarthy has done similar damage to vaccination rates in the US. One ignorant fuck who has no medical background spouting bullshit leads to lower vaccination rates. Why isn't the "good speech" preventing this like all the "free marketplace of idea" people claim it will? Has there simply not been enough "good speech" to counter Jenny McCarthy?
First, I consider the marketplace of ideas to be the best way to counter bad ideas, not a foolproof way of defeating bad ideas. The only alternative, really, is censorship and history has taught us that the most dangerous lies or bad ideas come from official sources. I think it's a mistake to believe that staunch defenders of free expression are blind to the imperfections of that principle. Good ideas do not always win. To me, it is simply preferable to a system where deference to authority is enforced by the law or by monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations.
Second, I doubt your analysis of the anti-vax movement is complete. I have no doubt about the damage that Wakefield and McCarthy have done. But there are so many other factors at play, one of which is the overwhelming success of widespread vaccination. Very few people have firsthand experience with polio, measles, smallpox, pertussis, or any number of other horrible viruses that used to make vaccines a pretty easy sell. There has also been a surge in distrust of institutions and authority across the board over the past 20 years. That is not limited to public health authorities.
So, yeah, the existence of flat-earthers and a rise in anti-vax kooks are not going to convince me to support a censorship regime.
I think the government shouldn't stop such speeches and assemblies unless they're about to lead to something else that ought to be prohibited (like violence).
The government should, and should issue permits in the same manner they would allow any other group who wishes to hold an assembly in the public square, and provide security [within reason] to ensure public saftey.
However, as to if it's people should respect speech over ideas that are determental to both themselves and their way of life, as a whole - no.
The problem is that gives Governments the power to outlaw speech negatively against itself and by saying “fuck the Government” “defund the police” defund the IRS” could then have legal ramifications
What do you mean by “we?” I don’t think private individuals or organizations are under any obligation to respect anything a Nazi says it does. I do think the government should protect the rights of Nazis to spew all their heinous bullshit because the right to free expression applies and should apply to all.
I believe the Communist Control Act of 1954 is still in effect which makes it illegal to form a Communist Party in the US from my mediocre understanding, so no I will not respect a Nazi’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square, but that’s cause I believe their ideology is based on valuing order above life. The state’s empowerment over the people’s empowerment.
I can't emphasize this enough: The First Amendment assures they have the right to say what they will, assemble, etc, without *the government* punishing them for it.
The *public,* however, can absolutely take note. We can take photographs, recognize they're being racist, and force them to deal with the *social* consequences of their actions.
You can't call the police if you see a person waving a Nazi flag; however, you can absolutely find out who that person is, call their boss, and get them fired from that job working at a hotdog stand.
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, so, yes, we should. Similarly, people should be allowed to protest their presence, similar to how bikers drowned out Westboro Baptist Church chants outside funerals.
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square?
Yes, because everyone's rights should be protected. That does not mean their speech is without social consequence.
>Or if they’re invited to speak at events
I don't see how this is related. Anyone being invited to speak at an event is allowed to speak at that event as long as their invitation has not been rescinded by someone with authority at the venue.
Should we respect the Free Speech right of people that shout Bomb at an airport? Should we respect the Free Speech rights of people that say that we should kill politicians?
Asking for genocide doesn't fall into Free Speech, just like how calling in fake bomb threats, threatening violence, encouraging murder, etc are also not protected.
I have a mixed feeling about "free speech". I think uncontested free speech poses tangible threat to security from foreign interference. From foreign governments funding "troll farms" to subvert social media, terrorist groups recruiting through public channels, foreign businesses monopolizing your countries media - all of those are antithesis to the existence of a sovereign democratic state. I feel like the people from the US might not yet see the threat so clearly because the US is a global superpower with a massive media empire, but it becoming more obvious in smaller countries. Like, I'm not comfortable with the fact that most of Canadian media with few exceptions is controlled by US shareholders.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Liberalism *has* to say yes because of blah blah muh freeze peach and all that, but then there is Antifa which will tear down the legally-placed posters, disrupt the legally-permitted meeting, attack the legally-permitted speaker.
And that's the key distinction. Liberalism is *not* anti-fascist. Liberalism takes the posture of "all is welcome in the marketplace of ideas". Antifa is....very much *not* that.
Of course we should respect their rights.
We should also use our rights and make sure that anytime Nazis are sharing their message, normal people show up in greater numbers to condemn them. Their first amendment rights don't guarantee that anyone wants to hear their Nazi bullshit.
If they don't like it, they can assemble in private venues that will prevent demonstrators from shouting them down.
Free speech. No exceptions for ideology, period. A government free to define exceptions is, well, free to define any exceptions it wants. Once you've allowed exceptions, don't go all Pikachu surprise face if a future conservative government decides your ideology is an exception. I'm sure DeSantis would love to be able to suppress speech and assembly for trans people.
What do you mean?
In terms of German Law? That’s stupid and doesn’t work.
In terms of protesting? Sure go ahead.
Additionally, if you’re referencing the post from yesterday that’s a moronic comparison.
How exactly?
It is definitely saying "imagine the person with the worst opinion, should we also defend their speech just as strongly in every context as the people we like?"
I feel like it's the exact same question as the one before, just with an unsympathetic victim of the protest.
Does YOUR answer change based on wether or not you like the person talking?
Yes, a MAGA judge who is actively working to operas minorities. That is a very consistent tactic of authoritarians.
Wait, are you really not aware that this judge is blatantly anti-LGBT+, and wants to craft laws to oppress them?
Wrong. The effect is to point out that a judge who is pursuing laws to oppress minorities is authoritarian, as that is a go to move of authoritarians.
Do you think it’s wrong to oppress minorities? Why are you vehemently defending a judge who is trying to use the law to do so?
>to point out that a judge who is pursuing laws to oppress minorities is authoritarian
Then say that. Calling him Nazi just makes you look ridiculous.
>Do you think it’s wrong to oppress minorities?
Yes.
>Why are you vehemently defending a judge who is trying to use the law to do so?
I'm not. Defending someone's right to speak -- at an event he was invited to, no less -- doesn't mean you agree with that person. That's the distinction you (and many people) seem to fail to grasp. There are lots of reasons to want to hear what someone says that are different than "I agree with that person."
Of course, I'd extend the same protections to others who align with all kinds of intolerant ideologies with a track record similar to Nazis.
Marxists, Muslims, Francoists, etc etc
We're all grown ups who can handle it.
Define "respect." For a lot of Nazis and people on the right, "respect" means that only they get to have an opinion and you're not allowed to disapprove of it.
> If I put up an ISIS flag in my window I’d get arrested in a second for supporting terrorism.
That wouldn't happen, but if it did the ACLU would (rightly) come to your defense as a victim of an unconstitutional arrest, and they'd almost certainly win their case.
It’s very easy to advocate for OTHER people to lose their rights and protections. But I doubt you’ll be so enthusiastic about it when those same restrictions are used against you.
I don’t think supporting hostile groups American soldiers have fought and died fighting against, like confederates, Nazis, ISIS, should constitute free speech. That by definition makes you an enemy of the country
So in your opinion, places like Guantanamo Bay are justifiable? It's okay to torture people and hold them without trial because they have no rights because they are enemies of the state?
Tricky question. If this question is prescriptive, e.g. given the current system and symptoms, then I suppose the state should not be involved in disputes of whether or not a Nazi is permitted to speak. As long as they are citizens and not felons, they have a certain bill of rights.
If this question is hypothetical, then no. Naziism and displays of it should be banned in the public square and punishable by prison time. It may not be perfect, but I’ve been to Germany and live in the US, and there are definitely things Germany does right. I believe that’s one of them.
I somehow feel like I just had a conversation about this.
As long as the nazis obey the same laws as everybody else they have the same rights to assamble and speak publicly just as much as everybody else, in fact that was already litigated in 1977.
We should respect everyone's rights. Period. You don't have any rights unless everyone has them. Rights you have that other people don't have are called privileges, and they can be taken away from you just as easily as you deny them from someone else.
That being said there are legally recognized limits to free speech that Nazi's tend to cross regularly. You can not try to convince people to commit a crime, or incite people to violence. Any Nazi group or individual Nazi should be permanently barred from public speaking once they violate this rule once. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "Oops, sorry I said to kill all the . I'll pay the fine. Pinky swear not to do it again!", and then they obviously are going to do it again.
Edit - Also, respecting someone's right to free speech does not mean you have to respect what they say. You are free to exercise your own right to free speech, in the same place, at the same time, to express how wrong you think they are, at a louder volume than them if possible.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Or if they’re invited to speak at events *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square? * Nazis legal rights should be protected because *everyone's* legal rights should be protected. * Whether, in an ideal world, we would amend the constitution to account for the paradox of tolerance, is a different question. * Nevertheless, no one should invite a nazi to speak, nor platform a nazi. * Also, some people are willing to subject themselves to criminal charges for 'punching a nazi'. They should not expect to be exempt from legal consequences if they choose to do so, but I still understand why they might make that choice.
Nazis have a right to assembly and speech. The rest of us have a right to assembly and speech to protest these nazis and anyone giving them a platform.
The people giving them a platform are in Congress right now. The way it’s being handled at the moment is not satisfactory. People have made jobs around being Nazis, congresswomen fundraise off of meeting with Nazis, the former president called in Nazis to organize his insurrection. At what point do we say we want some stronger laws on Nazis?
I'd say roughly 75 years ago. . .
When you say this, though, people immediately clutch their pearls and freak out about how the Nazis have a right to speak freely. Germany criminalized Nazism following WWII and it seems to have worked out very well for them.
You wouldn’t believe the arguments I get on here with people saying the KKK has free speech rights to burn a cross on your lawn.
Wait, who says they have that right on another's property?
I'm going to need a link to just one of these before I believe this.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/zav8i6/when_have_us_liberals_been_wrong/iyofewu/
Wow, that was unexpected.
I would only add that, while it’s extremely important that the law always officially be against punching someone in the face for saying something terribly bigoted or hateful, the citizenry has no obligation to *help* the law in its pursuit. So while the guy who punched the Nazi in the town square is *officially* a wanted man, it’s perfectly acceptable if no one is willing to come forward and identify or testify.
> ...it’s perfectly acceptable if no one is willing to come forward and identify or testify... ...and it's perfectly acceptable for a juror to refuse to convict him.
Jury nullification! I’ll never forget how the conservative in my sub crim class ranted about how wrong this is.
I’m guessing they weren’t super worried about wrongful convictions
White, wealthy, male fed Soc member. Def not worried.
It's how so many white people are acquitted in lynchmob homicides of black people in the South.
Or how a 17 year old with an assault weapon gets to kill 3 at a protest.
If you’re referring to Kyle rittenhouse, that’s not why he was acquitted
Oh, you mean the jury convicted him?
No--the basis of his acquittal was not jury nullification.
There is evidence that the jury acquitted him. There is no evidence that the acquittal was an example of jury nullification.
I am replying because I, too, want to read the answer to u/berrosaurus 's question.
Jury nullification is bad though. It literally creates a two tiered justice system.
It's a tool. It is as bad or good as the jury decides. It is tool for when the law and the masses are not aligned, and sometimes the masses are bigoted and biased.
Deciding prison sentences (and death sentences) by popular opinion is capricious and a direct violation of 6th amendment rights. Jury nullification is illegal and ought to stay illegal. This is definitely one of those issues where white people don’t see the harm and are confused why everyone else is nervous about it. Yeah, it’s fucking great when the jury lets you off for pot. Some of us don’t get that privilege though.
>Deciding prison sentences (and death sentences) by popular opinion is capricious and a direct violation of 6th amendment rights. What is the alternative you're after? > Jury nullification is illegal and ought to stay illegal. I'm not sure that's true. [In fact I am pretty sure it's explicitly legal](https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/its-perfectly-constitutional-talk-about-jury-nullification) so long as the idea originates from the Jury itself. >This is definitely one of those issues where white people don’t see the harm and are confused why everyone else is nervous about it. Yeah, it’s fucking great when the jury lets you off for pot. Some of us don’t get that privilege though. That is a 100% fair criticism of Jury Nullification. Even still, so long as we have juries we will have nullification.
My alternative is to criminalize Nazi groups rather than having people punch them while we all look away for a second. Ramping up the violence has not done a good job of protecting minorities. Most of the lasting protections have been through politics and the legal system. It’s important to me to keep the rule of law in place. I don’t like the projected outcome if we try to fight this your way.
I thought we were talking about jury nullification? > My alternative is to criminalize Nazi groups rather than having people punch them while we all look away for a second. Sure, there are many applicable laws that Nazi Groups (I assume you mean militias and terror cells) break. >I don’t like the projected outcome if we try to fight this your way. What’s “my way” you’re talking about here?
Jury nullification should happen 100% of the time incarceration is being considered.
Yep there are no moral quandaries with punching a Nazi. Their entire ideology is based on genocide. If that’s not deserving of a punch, I don’t know what is
This pretty much sums it up. Just remember that there's a difference between tolerating speech and tolerating actions. Actions by nazis *must* have a much stronger and opposite reaction. If they exist in peace, they restrict your ability to exist in peace unless you're a nazi.
When the Nazi’s had their rally in Dayton the city kept everyone at least a block away. The counter rallies (at almost every barricade) were beautiful affirmations of the community embracing diversity. Sometimes it helps to have someone say something horrible. It gives everyone else a reason to say “no, that’s wrong.”
Perfect answer.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from reprisal
The paradox of tolerance does not mean what progressives keep insisting it means. It does not mean "We can't tolerate intolerant people.". It means "The government cannot punish you for speech *unless that speech is advocating for censorship*.". A resolution to the paradox of tolerane would see the Nazi laughing as you are thrown in prison for this suggestion. I'm super bored of people not understanding it and using it as a justification for censoring intolerant groups. Germany approached it with "We're a democracy and you can found any political party, except one that seeks to overthrow democracy, you have no right to participate.", thus resolving the paradox of tolerance vis democracy. I suspect somebody heard "Paradox of tolerance" and then completely failed to understand it, and its just spread to the entire online left by this point and it's both incredibly stupid and incredibly ironic that they go around using it as a justification for censoring people they don't like. Bros. You would all be in prison if we actually adopted the policy you are suggesting *because you don't know what the fuck it means*.
>The paradox of tolerance...means "The government cannot punish you for speech *unless that speech is advocating for censorship*.". Can you back that up with a source? I'm not aware of this interpretation.
If you don't listen to online nutters it's the *only* interpertation that has a source, because that's how academia engages with the paradox of tolerance. It's limited and specific, not vague "Those guys are intolerant so they shouldn't have free speech." or "Those guys are intolerant so they shouldn't get a political party.". It's about how tolerance along a specific vector allows its own enemies to flourish. I.E, you have free speech even if you're going around trying to end free speech, thus the "Paradox of tolerance" where it sows the seeds of its own destruction unless you specifically carve out such exceptions, which some countries have in terms of "You can have a political party and run in elections, unless you want to end elections, then you can't", but no country has for free speech because it would see probably the supermajority of the population thrown in prison. Source 1: "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance and Its Modification". Source 2: Rosenfeld, M. Harvard law review (1987). Relevant section -> "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who ... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree." --- The point of the paradox of tolerance is to identify that it is incapable of defending itself from its enemies unless it carves out an exception of this kind. Despite progressives loving to invoke it to criticize the far-right, they would almost certainly not enjoy a regime which decided to take it to heart in its actual academic meaning. And you can tell this is the case because the alternative is to essentialize and criminalize the person rather than the act, and "We can predict what they're *going* to say, because of the type of person they are" doesn't really fly. The paradox of tolerance would see a progressive saying "That guy is a nazi, we know he's going to use his platform for hate speech if he gets one, so we should ban him from getting one" and say "You are under arrest for advocation of censorship.". If the Nazi then goes up there and dogwhistles about genocide there's no issue. If they say "We need to burn the Jewish Books" the paradox looms over him and throws him in the same cell as the progressive. You can't pre-crime an excuse to deny somebody their rights on the basis of what sort of person they are and so you're assuming they're going to do a crime, and if you can't specifically define the criminal act you're even expecting them to do, chances are you're talking out of your arse like most people are when they invoke the paradox of tolerance. Progressives use it as a vague academic reference in order to say "We don't have to respect the speech rights of people we think are intolerant.". Bro. That's *exactly* why a regime that took it seriously would throw most of you in prison. It is not what you think it is. The paradox proposal is there to defend the institution of free speech from those who are enemies of it. Nothing more.
I disagree that a nazis rights should be protected. If your platform requires the subjugation of entire ethnicities than your message does not deserve to see the light of day. It's a slippery slope and we definitely don't want to embolden our government t to suppress ideas so I don't know what the right answer is. It definitely isn't "keep letting nazis rise to power" though, which has been the approach for the last 70 years. I firmly believe that tolerance is a big part of the liberal problem. I don't accept nazis. I don't accept racists. I don't accept misogynists. I will never give them the time of day to speak in my presence because I don't think those people are worthy of the air they're stealing, let alone being listened to.
Of course Nazis' free speech rights should be protected. Why should it be up to you who gets to enjoy the blessings of liberty? If you don't think they're worth listening to, then you don't have to listen. But you don't get to tell me that I'm not allowed to.
But if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest? As in, should they protest, but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly?
> ...if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest? Nope. Confronting nazis is good. Protestors should *definitely* do anything within the law to shut down the nazi's speaking event. They *might* also consider going beyond what is legally allowed (accepting that they are likely to be punished by the law for doing so). ----------- >...should they protest... Yes. >...but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly? No. It is not their job to assure "the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly".
Devil’s advocate here. Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference? Is the only reason why it’s not our job to protect their speech is because we’re right and they’re wrong?
> Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference? 1. Nazis are special. They earned that special status. They did everything they could to establish themselves as *History's Greatest Monsters*, and -- after earning that reputation -- people still join their ranks. It is entirely reasonable to respond to those people differently than one would respond to progressives. 2. Everyone has the same legal rights, including Trump supporters, nazis, and progressives. 3. I would never support Trump supporters interfering with progressive speech, but that does not change their legal rights. While I would *prefer* that "Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference", I don't expect them to. ------- > Is the only reason why it’s not our job to protect their speech is because we’re right and they’re wrong? No. It is not our job because we are not agents of the government. If you become an agent of the government -- which usually involves an oath to uphold the law -- that might change. A cop, prosecutor, or judge might be obligated to protect their speech; that doesn't mean that *everyone* has to.
>Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference? Legally yes, but if other people want to shout them down and tell them to fuck off or not support or do business with them then that's also fine, encouraged even
I think so to your last point
How do we know we’re right and they’re wrong? I’m sure they think their right. Just like we think we’re right. (obviously this is getting philosophical but I think it’s important to question these things.)
Because their ideas are demonstrably destructive to society and incompatible with collective prosperity
But that’s your, (and my,) opinion. That’s not their opinion. Again, they think they’re right just like we think we’re right. So we’re right because we think we’re right? I think it’s important because these, “we’re right and they’re wrong” principals can be decimated which shuts down the exchange of ideas which leads to dogmatism and unscientific and illogical views of the world, which eventually leads to more harm.
That’s why I said it was demonstrable. It is evident. Not based on opinion.
Flaccid and false. (There is no typo in that sentence.) As u/othelloinc very eloquently, and correctly, stated in a different comment, Nazis are special because nazis themselves have always, continuously for the entire existence of nazis, *fought long and hard to become special.* Anyone who IS NOW a nazi, and anyone who might someday BECOME a nazi, every single one, with no exceptions of any kind, ALL nazis intentionally decide, every day, that they want nazis to be even more special than they already are. Nazis have always, every day, anywhere, ever, have ALWAYS fought very long and very hard to BECOME special. Nazis WANTED to engage in literal mass genocide, they WANTED Jews herded into camps, they WANTED those camps to be industrialized killing-machine camps. And every last nazi, anywhere, at any time during or since, ever, at all, ALL nazis still want (present tense, as in "today they continue to want") for those things to have happened during the Holocaust, and would absolutely endorse the idea of doing it again in the present day. That is what makes a person a nazi. Anyone calling themself a nazi who DOES NOT want any portion of those things, I submit, has a moral obligation and DUTY to punch themselves in the face, repeatedly, at full force.
>Should Trump supporters allow progressives the ability to have free speech without interference? This whole argument really comes down to personal morals and values, since in neither case can the government really step in without violating the First (to my understanding). There's no legal problem if either group tries to interfere with anything, within the confines of the law. However, I'd argue it's more justified to interfere with Nazis than an actual, non-hate-based platform like progressives - just not from a legal standpoint. I'd say Trump supporters have the right to try and interfere with our free speech as long as it doesn't involve trespassing, violence, or other illegal acts, but we'd have every right to ignore or try to prevent them (knowing the government themselves can't step in and block legal Trump-supporter interference).
[удалено]
> what groups do you define as Nazi I think this is a discussion that all of us -- as a society -- need to have. It will be unpleasant, but important. --------- Also, I've begun using the word "*n*azi" (as opposed to "*N*azi"). * If you identify yourself with the Nazi Party and/or its symbols, then all call you a (capital-N) Nazi. * If you don't, but you happen to share their worldview and policy preferences, I won't hesitate to call you a nazi.
Nat-C seems to cover the correct ideological points.
I’m assuming you meant to say “shout down nazi’s” though the sentence still works.
[удалено]
Nazis can speak but it’s the other protestor’s right to shout them down/drown them out/cancel their events. That’s free speech too. Same rules for everyone.
I am not a government. I don't have to abide by their first amendment rights. I DO have to accept legal consequences for illegal activity. But I definitely don't have to worry about disrupting their event. Fuck Nazis.
If they want to protest city hall, fine. But they better be ok with the consequences for doing so - like using “cancel culture” to get them fired or ostracized. And I’d probably risk a simple assault charge, but that depends entirely on them. The two good things about the Nazis is they’re the baddies in the best Indiana Jones movies, and a fantastic punk song by the Dead Kennedys, [Nazi punks fuck off.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHLPnGuVSQ)
Third thing: Hitler's final solution for Hitler existing. Big fan of that policy.
>But if the Nazis are invited to speak, should protesters avoid shutting it down with their protest? No >As in, should they protest, but not to the extent that it interferes with the Nazis ability to have free speech and assembly? They have no right to shut down the audience. If they need a safe space they should create their own far away from sane people.
The right to free speech doesn't give you the right to a platform. If people don't like what you're saying they are as entitled to protest your speech as you are entitled to speak.
So I think resisting Nazis is an undeniable good. But since this thread is actually about the thread from yesterday, I think I’ll address why I have differences with some of the people in that thread. Wee all agree that Nazis are bad and that fascism and authoritarianism are really a risk in the United States right now. I think the difference is that while we agree on that, some of us want to **be right** while the rest of us assume we are right and **want to win**. The way we win is winning elections and changing minds and changing what is acceptable in social discourse. And if you’re talking to regular people who don’t follow the news that closely I don’t really understand the concept that deeply, constantly screaming not do not do not speak is not an effective strategy. There’s just too many people who think the Nazis are a thing of the past and relevant today only as the villains in Indiana Jones movies and Castle Wolfenstein games. The number of people that either didn’t already know what a piece of crap that judge is or would quickly read up about him and figure it out is really low. You probably couldn’t fill Yankee Stadium with the number of people that heard about the story and came down on our side. Most people just heard that **tHe LeFt** is shutting down a judge who was invited on campus because **tHe LeFt** just calls everyone a nazi and doesn’t want to listen. And that’s why they do this stuff. They are playing us. They want to hide behind the concept that we are unreasonable. We need to pick our battles.
It’s not about that judge. I don’t know who that judge is. It’s about the free speech absolutism I’m seeing from commenters here and I’m curious how far it extends. I don’t think they’re hiding. I think we’re just refusing to see them for as they are on a grand scale
Nah, fuck nazis
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square? If you mean "the government should not attempt to limit their speech", yes: they have first amendment rights and they can say what they want and not be persecuted by the government. Does it mean the rest of us have to respect it? No. Those people can be aired out in social media, boycotted, and otherwise discriminated against by every private citizen and company who disagrees with them. The first amendment protects them from government persecution. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to "respect" it.
Should the government forcibly remove Nazis from public events? No. Should we respect Nazis speech by not privately disrupting them, criticizing them, or deplatforming them? No.
They have that right. I have the right to heckle them with insults. If they can't take people disagreeing with them that's their problem.
Nazis are free to speak. And people who dislike Nazis are ALSO allowed to speak. It's the second one that trips up the Nazis!
Fascists strive to remove free speech from others for immutable characteristics. Their ideology is inherent incompatible with notions of respect for all people. Tolerating them is to force others to live with their intolerance and the potential dangerous ramifications that come with that. They should be ridiculed, demonized, and de-platformed in all manners. Hate speech does not deserve protection.
Yeah, if only because setting the precedent that constitutional rights can be curtailed on the basis of political beliefs is the definition of a slippery slope. As long as they aren't saying anything that'd get anyone else shut down by the state for inciting violence etc. then the state shouldn't shut them down. That said, *shouting* them down through massive protest should absolutely happen every single time any one of them sticks their hate-filled head up out of the slurry of blood and ash which represents the full sum of contributions or accomplishments to which their philosophy (such as it is) can lay claim. Force them to be police-escorted to and from their soapbox through a vocally angry picket line, drown out their speech with chanting and singing, spread literature debunking common fascist talking points, hold a simultaneous anti-Nazi rally nearby, etc. If they were invited to speak by an organization then boycott and publicly shame that organization, as well as the owners of the venue if that's a different entity. It's both better for everyone's continued access to freedom of speech and healthier for our societal and cultural development for them to be oppressed and marginalized by the people via grassroots activism rather than the state via a random cop with a court order.
In public? Yes. We should not physically prevent them from speaking. However, going and counter-protesting and drowning them out is fine. At private events? That's up to who hosts the event. And people can certainly counter protest that as well.
What does respect mean? Cause yes these should be allowed as a matter of free speech but no I'm no going to respect them as they do it.
Should we respect ISIS or the Taliban rights to speech and assembly in the public square?
As long as they don't threaten violence then yes. You're respecting the right for free speech not respecting who speaking it....
I’d say no. Perhaps the government should. But individuals probably shouldn’t
Like Iran?
It is the duty of the *government* to not infringe upon the free speech rights of the people. It is not the duty of the people to do so amongst each other. We can't let fascists have free reign to assemble unmolested by the public. They got a permit? Great! Break that shit up. They were invited by some other group? Great! Break that shit up. They have a... GREAT! Break. That. Shit. Up. As long as it isn't the government doing it, then we're golden.
Laws exist for a reason, and that reasons is: to make you think good and hard before you break them. We are all safer in a world where Nazis do not feel safe to show their colors publicly.
I have a buddy whose dad was a judge and he said something around these lines once, "If there's a law that you don't agree with, that you think is so unjust that you just can't bring yourself to follow it, then break it. There are unjust laws. But, don't expect society to allow the infraction to go unpunished. The system will work as intended and you should plan accordingly."
There's wisdom in that.
The government protecting any group's ability to communicate their message by preventing others from replying isn't respecting rights, it is bestowing a privilege.
Yes, but we should kindly ask them to remove their MAGA hats while indoors.
Religious head coverings are protected though inside, right?
As far as the law goes, yes. But actually, no. I saw a great take on the paradox of tolerance a few days ago: if you consider tolerance as a social contract rather than a contextless moral precept, that paradox disappears. People who don’t abide by the terms of the contract aren’t covered by it, and that’s what the deal is with Nazis.
They should get all the free speech rights that BLM protesters have. Meaning, the police should arbitrarily decide to break up the rally halfway through and then start firing tear gas at them.
The government shouldn’t interfere. No matter how racist, no matter how sexist, no matter how homophobic or transphobic, people have a right to say what they want without government interference. Because if we start restricting speech, it’s only a matter of time before our own is restricted. *We* as private citizens however aren’t bound by such restrictions and can tell them to go the hell and offer to send them there quickly if they want to fuck around and find out.
Has right wing extremism increased or decreased? Has the normalizing and platforming of these types helped or hurt society? You can speak freely, but i don't think genocidal rhetoric is ok. Our society had acknowledged years ago that certain rhetoric is not conducive to public safety. There's things like racial rhetoric being disallowed in public, though not readily enforced. We also have menacing laws in the USA that state that threats of harm are criminal sometimes at the felony level. What's important to note is that the idea that these things can exist in society with regular liberal ideas is false. We know it's false because the radicals themselves say so. And even our political parties act in this way. Who's at risk at having their free speech limited? Drag queens or Nazis? Isn't it strange that there's so much effort placed on them when the Nazis whose free speech is our concern have an ideology that is explicitly violent and they are one of the most violent groups in the USA. On a personal note, when these ideas are allowed in the public square other folks psychological safety is harmed. Their rhetoric simply is harmful. I, myself, have suffered a great deal of anguish and had to seek psychological help for what they say. Most importantly, their rhetoric eventually leads to action.
Based on the last thread I read on this sub, I have to ask: Who gets to define someone as a Nazi?
I think Nazis deserve all the same kindness, compassion, and respect that they show to Jews and gay people.
I'm wondering what you mean by respecting their rights. It shouldn't mean giving up our own rights of free speech or any other right.
If it’s disrespecting their rights to prevent their free speech and assembly, then I mean that. Should we prevent their free speech and assembly, or stand by and respect it
First amendment rights don't exist to prevent other citizens from shutting down speech. They exist to prevent the government from shutting down speech. It's not a social contract between individual citizens. It's a social contract between the governing and the governed. If you think it's disrespectful to interrupt their speech, then don't disrupt it. If others find what they are saying disrespectful, then they are also free to be disruptive.
It’s not disrespecting their right to free speech. In fact, protesting and shouting them down is itself free speech. Generally, people that argue against such protests don’t actually think shutting down certain speech is bad, they just don’t like that speech that they agree with got protested. But they’re cowards that know they’ll get pushback if the tried to argue the unpopular topic, so instead they hide behind the argument about speech and process in an attempt to give those unpopular opinions undeserved respect.
Naziism is a criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder, so no, there are no "free speech" or "assembly" considerations here.
If Germany won't respect them, and with excellent reason, there is absolutely no reason their hatred and vitriol should ever be given a platform here. It will only lead to terrible things.
Did you downvote me, despite me agreeing with you lol
Come on man you should know better than this. We as citizens cannot infringe on their rights, only the government can. That’s what the Bill of Rights is for.
Yesterday, I read many comments arguing that protesting speakers as colleges to the extent where they cannot give their speeches, is inhibiting their right to free speech. So I said **if**
The first amendment only applies to government suppression of speech. I have no obligation to respect anyone’s speech. Also, ideologies which preach hate result in violence and I don’t have a problem with the government limiting such dangerous speech. Hitler’ s speech resulted in genocide.
I am not the government, so if I prevent a Nazi from being able to grab a mic or be heard over my sick-ass bass licks, no one's speech is being violated.
The way to shut down nonsense is to allow it to be said as loudly and publicly as possible. Then destroy their hateful rhetoric with logic and empathy. That'll turn alot more people than screaming louder or silencing them. Silencing someone never worked, they just speak and gain supporters in the shadows with no retaliation. The only reason to silence someone is because they're speaking the truth, and the truth hurts your narrative
Everyone has the legal right to speak - even nazis. *Everybody else* has the legal right to say exactly how they feel about that speech, the people/organizations that gives it a platform, and to choose to consume accordingly. In other words, we must respect everybody's right to speak. But we are under no obligation to respect what is said, the people saying it, or the people promoting it. You have the right to be free of legal consequences for your speech, but nowhere does it say you have the right to be free of social consequences. You're free to act like a total piece of shit, but everyone else is very much free to treat you like the total piece of shit that you are if you do.
There are multiple questions here, and respect is difficult idea to quantify. That said, I respect the US Constitution. I do not respect Nazis (and some of the other groups that assemble). I do not respect private institutions that pay for or host nazis (among others) to speak. I do not respect using public funds to pay for or host nazis (among others) to speak. And, I respect my rights to protest/assemble/petition for or against any of the above.
I think this depends on what is meant by “respect.” I think that even Nazis should be able to show up, say what they want and leave without encountering violence or legal ramifications. I also think we have a responsibility to protest such messages, and be adamant that such views are morally reprehensible.
Fuck no. Any event that invites fucking Nazis to speak should be ashamed of themselves.
What do you think about people / groups like Vladimir Putin, the Taliban, and the Chinese Communist Party? I mention those three because they were all given editorial space in the New York Times. I think a function of the press and academia is to expose the world to what people are thinking. In other words, the editorial pages of the Times are a part of the news. You can open the pages and read about what the Taliban wants in Afghanistan or the CCP’s justification for the HK security law in their own words. Putin and the CCP, in particular, pose a greater threat to human life today than any Nazi organization does. I’m not sure how old you are, but when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, major networks often featured neo Nazis or Klansmen on shows like Oprah, Donahue, etc. These were also decades when the American public really began to hold that kind of racism to be completely unacceptable in polite society, meaning those people were rejected as serious political players. Of course racism has evolved and continues to exist in America, but I really think that having those people on TV really showed the public how they think and that they were, basically, fools. Dangerous fools, but fools nonetheless. I think exposure and indifference is much more effective than the kind of heckling and disruption we see today. That has been the SPLC’s take on Klan rallies for decades. The Proud Boys and other kooks that caused so much violence in Portland specifically chose the city because they knew they would meet the fiercest response there. And they did. It’s a propaganda coup for them. Not only that, a lot of young guys want the violence. It’s kicks for them. Anyway, interested what you have to think about those meandering thoughts.
Yeah fuck those people too. I fucking hate how the NYT allowed those entities to make editorial articles completely uncritical.
The difference now from the 80s and 90s is that nazi/fascist ideas and talking points have been successfully mainstreamed into the Republican party and conservative movement. I still see value in exposing these ding dongs for the idiots they are, but the situation is higher stakes now **and** they've managed to polish up their ideological turds enough for large portions of the public to swallow. Additionally, when you're talking about groups like TPUSA, their events are revenue streams as well. That money goes right back in to funding the overall movement. As for the PB in Portland. . . the antifascists there are in a catch 22. They know PB and Patriot Prayer and the like fundraise off the videos when they all have a street fight, but if they **don't** come out to fight them, the PB attack homeless people or random citizens. At that point, it's a choice between going out to defend people who **aren't** prepared for PB violence or letting those more helpless people take the assaults. I'm not sure what the best response is, but these are things people need to think about around this stuff.
The way to counter bad speech and ideas is with more speech and ideas. Protestors can, and should, use their own first amendment rights to counter bad speech. The government, however, cannot and should not shut down speech or expression disliked by those with government power. So, making laws to limit first amendment expression is wrong. Counter-protesting, heckling, etc. by other private citizens, while annoying, is not illegal and is allowed.
> The way to counter bad speech and ideas is with more speech and ideas. Yep. It's working so well at reforming flat earthers and anti-vaxxers. No way silly beliefs like that can flourish in an environment where every random person has a megaphone.
Bad ideas will always exist and people will always believe them. The goal isn't eradication or reformation because that's impossible. The goal is not to allow the ideas to win the majority in a democracy. It will always be this way.
It didn't used to be this way. People with bad ideas (non-reality-based ideas) used to be confined to small corners of society. This was because there used to be gatekeepers who would prevent many of them from spreading their poisonous message. Now this didn't work perfectly. Plenty of charlatan psychics and faith healers still got platforms on TV in the 70s. Yet there is no doubt that non-reality-based ideas are able to spread, multiply, and reinforce each other today compared to before the Internet. That's not to say that the 'era of gatekeepers' didn't have downsides. The democratization of media has had lots of positive effects too. I just don't know how to combat the spread of bad ideas when it's no longer possible to keep them from spreading, nor is it possible to drown them out when people live in echo chambers.
We live in echo chambers because gatekeepers still exist. We are the worst gatekeeper isolating our own selves. We go to places on the internet where mods gatekeep for us. We watch TV that gatekeeps for us. All of us do it. We even do it to create small subcommunities within larger ones - the variation among people generally more liberal here is an example. The internet did connect people, which is great. But, it also allowed us to self-isolate into comfort zones.
I've yet to see any evidence to support the assertion that the "marketplace of free ideas" leads to better outcomes here. Lies, misinformation and disinformation spread so much more easily than rigorously studied and supportable truths do. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle or Brandolini's Law pretty much guarantees the bad information will drastically outnumber the good information. For the majority to reach the correct conclusion, they have to be able to navigate the bullshit and find good sources which show the data and methodology and then they have to be able to read and understand the study. More than half of US citizens read below a 6th grade level. Many people are going to find Susan's anecdote about her cousin's reaction to a vaccination more compelling than looking at any actual data. From an impact standpoint, there are 15 states that are below 60% vaccination rate. South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Idaho, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Wyoming. There are 7 states (plus DC) above 80% vaccination. District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York The stupidest states have a structural advantage in our electoral system thus our legislative branch is beholden to their ignorance. Since non-budget legislation requires a super majority, it's literally impossible to make progress in this country while Republicans do their best to ensure their citizens remain ignorant and get more ignorant over time. Putting faith in the average person to be educated enough to seek out and understand nuance is folly. > “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” > ~ George Bernard Shaw.
So, what are your proposed solutions? Does it involve using the government to suppress individual rights to free speech? Requiring individuals to be silent and defer to other individuals? Holding certain categories and institutions to higher ethical standards for speech? What is the solution? To me, loudly, repetitively, and consistently refuting harmful information at every opportunity and in every venue by as many individual people as possible is the solution. Bad ideas, even those with good intentions, have and will win again eventually. This is how it has always been and will always be.
I've proposed no solutions. I just think blindly assuming freely sharing ideas leads to the best outcomes absent supporting data is a silly position to have. If this is what works best, demonstrate that. Why should I take it on faith when it's counter to what is seen in reality? What I can say for certain is that [deplatforming works](https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-new-data-on-trump-tweets-shows/). It drastically reduces misinformation and disinformation almost immediately. Milo and Alex Jones aren't on social media broadcasting their filth to the world anymore not because other people countered their ideas better, but because they finally went too far and violated the terms of service and got the boot. That's been far, far more effective at shutting down their disinformation than any amount of tweeting back at them did.
Deplatforming by private entities is part of free speech by individuals to shut down bad information. It IS an example of what I am talking about. An individual or entity choosing to use their own freedoms, rights, and powers to combat bad ideas and bad information is how the marketplace if ideas work. Edit: As much as the right rages about cancel culture, it works also. Telling companies that their support of certain ideas will cost them money and then following through with it, is how freedom of ideas works also. This is a tactic the right used for ages. Boycotts are effective.
If you're including deplatforming as an example of "good speech" which can be used to fight disinformation, then I agree with you. What I'm saying doesn't work to any meaningful degree is refuting nonsense by providing correct information. When "free speech absolutists" both liberal and conservative talk about their market place for ideas, it certainly doesn't include deplatforming as a feature. Quite the opposite, they want prevent companies from being able to moderate content on their own platform. That we just need to use our words to sort out all the disinformation is what I disagree with.
Agreed. To me, countering bad speech with good speech means all individuals and entities use all of their freedoms of speech and choice (and even the workings of capitalism) to counter bad ideas. The government can't do it and will only make bad actors martyrs if they do. But, the rest of us can surely and unequivocally ostracize, isolate, disrupt, deplatform, and dispute all bad ideas within the allowance of the law (or, break the law if you choose, but the consequences are on you.). And, of course they want to use the government to limit the freedoms of others to isolate, ostracize, criticize, deplatform, or disrupt their bullshit. That's what makes them anti-freedom fascists.
I guarantee you that fewer flat earthers exist today, relative to population size, than at any time in human history.
I doubt that there have ever been as many people motivated to share their theories on how the earth is truly flat and there is a world wide conspiracy to keep the truth from people than there are today. I think there is a huge difference between what I would call "innocent ignorance" and "motivated ignorance". Even a few hundred years ago, the information about the shape and size of the world though known, wasn't necessarily widely available to average people. There is nothing wrong or abnormal with being ignorant about things you've not been exposed to before. We are constantly in this state. Where the anti-vaxxers and flat earthers differ is we have made these details widely available as part of a general education and they can be readily observed both historically and empirically. These people aren't just ignorant. They have motivated ignorance where anything which disagrees with them is immediately dismissed regardless of the source. They know that most people don't believe this and they and a small group of brave intellectuals are the only ones in on the secret. They know there is a vast amount of data readily available which easily disproves their beliefs. But all of that is just a giant conspiracy to keep people in the dark. That's extremely different from a villager in England in the 1700's thinking this "world is a sphere" talk is nonsense who neither has access or knowledge to comprehend the data.
What is wrong with that trade off? Education and technology have become so widespread that more and more people have knowledge than at any time before. More speech and ideas have convinced the "innocent ignoramuses" of the reality of a spherical planet earth. The only remaining flat-earthers are a small group of kooks. That's kind of to be expected, isn't it?
I'm not sure. Those kooks didn't really exist or have any meaningful way to share their delusions until the internet existed. They aren't ideological descendants of the villager who had no concept of the idea. They were created in modern times well after general knowledge of the shape of the world was known. My point is this isn't an ever shrinking pool of ignorance. It has absolutely grown in popularity and reach since its inception in 2004. Same with anti-vaccine sentiments. [They have grown](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122668/) and none of the "good speech" prevented that. > The anti-vaccination movement was most strongly rejuvenated in recent years by the publication of a paper in The Lancet by a former British doctor and researcher, Andrew Wakefield, which suggested credence to the debunked-claim of a connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and development of autism in young children [14]. Several studies published later disproved a causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism [15-18]. Wakefield drew severe criticism for his flawed and unethical research methods, which he used to draw his data and conclusions [19]. A journalistic investigation also revealed that there was a conflict of interest with regard to Wakefield’s publication because he had received funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers, which he obviously did not disclose to either his co-workers nor medical authorities [20]. For all of the aforementioned reasons, The Lancet retracted the study, and its editor declared it “utterly false” [21]. As a result, three months later, he was also struck off the UK Medical Registry, barring him from practicing medicine in the UK. The verdict declared that he had "abused his position of trust" and "brought the medical profession into disrepute" in the studies he carried out [22]. > Repercussions of declining vaccination rates > The damage, however, was already done and the myth was spread to many different parts of the world, especially Western Europe and North America. In the UK, for example, the MMR vaccination rate dropped from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In 2003, the rate was as low as 61% in some parts of London, far below the rate needed to avoid an epidemic of measles [23]. In Ireland, in 1999-2000, the national immunization level had fallen below 80%, and in part of North Dublin, the level was around 60% [24]. In the US, the controversy following the publication of the study led to a decline of about 2% in terms of parents obtaining the MMR vaccine for their children in 1999 and 2000. Even after later studies explicitly and thoroughly debunked the alleged MMR-autism link, the drop in vaccination rates persisted [25]. > As a result, multiple breakouts of measles have occurred throughout different parts of the Western world, infecting dozens of patients and even causing deaths. In the UK in 1998, 56 people contracted measles; in 2006, this number increased to 449 in the first five months of the year, with the first death since 1992 [26]. In 2008, measles was declared endemic in the UK for the first time in 14 years [27]. In Ireland, an outbreak occurred in 2000 and 1,500 cases and three deaths were reported. The outbreak was reported to have occurred as a direct result of a drop in vaccination rates following the MMR controversy [28]. In France, more than 22,000 cases of measles were reported from 2008 - 2011 [29]. The United States has not been an exception, with outbreaks occurring most recently in 2008, 2011, and 2013 [30-32]. **One** scientist released a bullshit study which lead to vaccination rates plummeting after the disinformation people got their hands on it. It doesn't matter how many people refuted him and showed his study was garbage. Jenny McCarthy has done similar damage to vaccination rates in the US. One ignorant fuck who has no medical background spouting bullshit leads to lower vaccination rates. Why isn't the "good speech" preventing this like all the "free marketplace of idea" people claim it will? Has there simply not been enough "good speech" to counter Jenny McCarthy?
First, I consider the marketplace of ideas to be the best way to counter bad ideas, not a foolproof way of defeating bad ideas. The only alternative, really, is censorship and history has taught us that the most dangerous lies or bad ideas come from official sources. I think it's a mistake to believe that staunch defenders of free expression are blind to the imperfections of that principle. Good ideas do not always win. To me, it is simply preferable to a system where deference to authority is enforced by the law or by monopolistic Silicon Valley corporations. Second, I doubt your analysis of the anti-vax movement is complete. I have no doubt about the damage that Wakefield and McCarthy have done. But there are so many other factors at play, one of which is the overwhelming success of widespread vaccination. Very few people have firsthand experience with polio, measles, smallpox, pertussis, or any number of other horrible viruses that used to make vaccines a pretty easy sell. There has also been a surge in distrust of institutions and authority across the board over the past 20 years. That is not limited to public health authorities. So, yeah, the existence of flat-earthers and a rise in anti-vax kooks are not going to convince me to support a censorship regime.
Silly beliefs like the “lab leak theory” and “ineffective” covid vaccines?
Yup. Makes it easier to throw rocks at them.
I think the government shouldn't stop such speeches and assemblies unless they're about to lead to something else that ought to be prohibited (like violence).
The government should, and should issue permits in the same manner they would allow any other group who wishes to hold an assembly in the public square, and provide security [within reason] to ensure public saftey. However, as to if it's people should respect speech over ideas that are determental to both themselves and their way of life, as a whole - no.
To a degree yes but we should also delineate between free speech and hate speech
The problem is that gives Governments the power to outlaw speech negatively against itself and by saying “fuck the Government” “defund the police” defund the IRS” could then have legal ramifications
What do you mean by “we?” I don’t think private individuals or organizations are under any obligation to respect anything a Nazi says it does. I do think the government should protect the rights of Nazis to spew all their heinous bullshit because the right to free expression applies and should apply to all.
I believe the Communist Control Act of 1954 is still in effect which makes it illegal to form a Communist Party in the US from my mediocre understanding, so no I will not respect a Nazi’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square, but that’s cause I believe their ideology is based on valuing order above life. The state’s empowerment over the people’s empowerment.
Tolerating intolerance isn’t tolerance.
Respect? No. Do they have the right to say and think that shit? Yeah. But they get no respect. Fuck those people.
I can't emphasize this enough: The First Amendment assures they have the right to say what they will, assemble, etc, without *the government* punishing them for it. The *public,* however, can absolutely take note. We can take photographs, recognize they're being racist, and force them to deal with the *social* consequences of their actions. You can't call the police if you see a person waving a Nazi flag; however, you can absolutely find out who that person is, call their boss, and get them fired from that job working at a hotdog stand.
Of course they have a right to speak, and others have a right to protest it and shame it, and shame organizations that platform that speech.
I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, so, yes, we should. Similarly, people should be allowed to protest their presence, similar to how bikers drowned out Westboro Baptist Church chants outside funerals.
>Should we respect Nazis’ rights to speech and assembly in the public square? Yes, because everyone's rights should be protected. That does not mean their speech is without social consequence. >Or if they’re invited to speak at events I don't see how this is related. Anyone being invited to speak at an event is allowed to speak at that event as long as their invitation has not been rescinded by someone with authority at the venue.
Nazis have a right to free speech but doesn’t mean they can’t get punched for it
No. Conservative thought must be removed from society before it removes us from society. The threat is clear, as is the solution.
Should we respect the Free Speech right of people that shout Bomb at an airport? Should we respect the Free Speech rights of people that say that we should kill politicians? Asking for genocide doesn't fall into Free Speech, just like how calling in fake bomb threats, threatening violence, encouraging murder, etc are also not protected.
I have a mixed feeling about "free speech". I think uncontested free speech poses tangible threat to security from foreign interference. From foreign governments funding "troll farms" to subvert social media, terrorist groups recruiting through public channels, foreign businesses monopolizing your countries media - all of those are antithesis to the existence of a sovereign democratic state. I feel like the people from the US might not yet see the threat so clearly because the US is a global superpower with a massive media empire, but it becoming more obvious in smaller countries. Like, I'm not comfortable with the fact that most of Canadian media with few exceptions is controlled by US shareholders.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Liberalism *has* to say yes because of blah blah muh freeze peach and all that, but then there is Antifa which will tear down the legally-placed posters, disrupt the legally-permitted meeting, attack the legally-permitted speaker. And that's the key distinction. Liberalism is *not* anti-fascist. Liberalism takes the posture of "all is welcome in the marketplace of ideas". Antifa is....very much *not* that.
Of course we should respect their rights. We should also use our rights and make sure that anytime Nazis are sharing their message, normal people show up in greater numbers to condemn them. Their first amendment rights don't guarantee that anyone wants to hear their Nazi bullshit. If they don't like it, they can assemble in private venues that will prevent demonstrators from shouting them down.
Ideally, no. We should do what Germany does.
No. Death threats and sedition are not protected speech.
No
[удалено]
And let me take this oportunity to express my derision towards anyone who downvotes this. There's nothing a Nazi likes more than cowardice.
Free speech. No exceptions for ideology, period. A government free to define exceptions is, well, free to define any exceptions it wants. Once you've allowed exceptions, don't go all Pikachu surprise face if a future conservative government decides your ideology is an exception. I'm sure DeSantis would love to be able to suppress speech and assembly for trans people.
I don’t think he’d be stopped from doing so if he won
Our current jurisprudence on this says he'd be stopped. But if you want to be able to ban Nazis, you open the door for people like DeSantis.
Yes, don't nanny what people can hear.
Yes. The public square is for everyone, not just the people you agree with.
What do you mean? In terms of German Law? That’s stupid and doesn’t work. In terms of protesting? Sure go ahead. Additionally, if you’re referencing the post from yesterday that’s a moronic comparison.
I’m unsure how to say this. Should we aim to shut down the free speech and assembly of Nazis, even when they’re invited?
This is positively MAGA-like false equivalency.
How exactly? It is definitely saying "imagine the person with the worst opinion, should we also defend their speech just as strongly in every context as the people we like?" I feel like it's the exact same question as the one before, just with an unsympathetic victim of the protest. Does YOUR answer change based on wether or not you like the person talking?
Please elucidate, I’d love to hear why you think this.
Comparing a conservative federal judge to a Nazi?
Yes, a MAGA judge who is actively working to operas minorities. That is a very consistent tactic of authoritarians. Wait, are you really not aware that this judge is blatantly anti-LGBT+, and wants to craft laws to oppress them?
I'm aware. But suggesting he's equivalent to a Nazi is silly. The only effect of that comparison is to make the person making it seem hysterical.
Wrong. The effect is to point out that a judge who is pursuing laws to oppress minorities is authoritarian, as that is a go to move of authoritarians. Do you think it’s wrong to oppress minorities? Why are you vehemently defending a judge who is trying to use the law to do so?
>to point out that a judge who is pursuing laws to oppress minorities is authoritarian Then say that. Calling him Nazi just makes you look ridiculous. >Do you think it’s wrong to oppress minorities? Yes. >Why are you vehemently defending a judge who is trying to use the law to do so? I'm not. Defending someone's right to speak -- at an event he was invited to, no less -- doesn't mean you agree with that person. That's the distinction you (and many people) seem to fail to grasp. There are lots of reasons to want to hear what someone says that are different than "I agree with that person."
Of course, I'd extend the same protections to others who align with all kinds of intolerant ideologies with a track record similar to Nazis. Marxists, Muslims, Francoists, etc etc We're all grown ups who can handle it.
>Muslims
Right? Accidental racism or something.
Very intentional bigotry lol
yes, pick up a history book and a copy of the quran, immerse yourself into the circles if you're confused.
What distinguishes it from other religions and their histories and books?
I think you need to educate yourself on what a Muslim is.
No. Nazis should be eradicated from public life.
[удалено]
Removed. Threatening violence against anyone (even terrible people) is not welcome here.
Define "respect." For a lot of Nazis and people on the right, "respect" means that only they get to have an opinion and you're not allowed to disapprove of it.
Enemies of the US should not enjoy our rights. That’s called treason
Until YOU are designated as the enemy, of course…
If I put up an ISIS flag in my window I’d get arrested in a second for supporting terrorism. Why are the Nazis any different?
>If I put up an ISIS flag in my window I’d get arrested in a second for supporting terrorism. That's not true at all.
> If I put up an ISIS flag in my window I’d get arrested in a second for supporting terrorism. That wouldn't happen, but if it did the ACLU would (rightly) come to your defense as a victim of an unconstitutional arrest, and they'd almost certainly win their case.
It’s very easy to advocate for OTHER people to lose their rights and protections. But I doubt you’ll be so enthusiastic about it when those same restrictions are used against you.
I don’t think supporting hostile groups American soldiers have fought and died fighting against, like confederates, Nazis, ISIS, should constitute free speech. That by definition makes you an enemy of the country
American soldiers have also fought and died against Vietnam. Should it be illegal to show a Vietnamese flag in public?
So in your opinion, places like Guantanamo Bay are justifiable? It's okay to torture people and hold them without trial because they have no rights because they are enemies of the state?
[Paradox of Tolerance](https://i.redd.it/vl00mm78jpq61.jpg)
Tricky question. If this question is prescriptive, e.g. given the current system and symptoms, then I suppose the state should not be involved in disputes of whether or not a Nazi is permitted to speak. As long as they are citizens and not felons, they have a certain bill of rights. If this question is hypothetical, then no. Naziism and displays of it should be banned in the public square and punishable by prison time. It may not be perfect, but I’ve been to Germany and live in the US, and there are definitely things Germany does right. I believe that’s one of them.
I somehow feel like I just had a conversation about this. As long as the nazis obey the same laws as everybody else they have the same rights to assamble and speak publicly just as much as everybody else, in fact that was already litigated in 1977.
Respect their rights to do so? Yes. Respect what they say? No. Protest at events they hold? Hell, yes.
We should respect everyone's rights. Period. You don't have any rights unless everyone has them. Rights you have that other people don't have are called privileges, and they can be taken away from you just as easily as you deny them from someone else. That being said there are legally recognized limits to free speech that Nazi's tend to cross regularly. You can not try to convince people to commit a crime, or incite people to violence. Any Nazi group or individual Nazi should be permanently barred from public speaking once they violate this rule once. Otherwise, it becomes a game of "Oops, sorry I said to kill all the. I'll pay the fine. Pinky swear not to do it again!", and then they obviously are going to do it again.
Edit - Also, respecting someone's right to free speech does not mean you have to respect what they say. You are free to exercise your own right to free speech, in the same place, at the same time, to express how wrong you think they are, at a louder volume than them if possible.
Depends what they're talking about
I think we should respect their rights to assemble in their mum's basement and nowhere else.