Nazis Have a Fundamental Right to Free Speech..or they don't

[pErvinalia]

Who gives a shit. If the world changes then the best arguments will be found to justify the state of things. -arguments shmarguments...

Not surprised at all that you would applaud that. It's your kind of argument.

Not surprised you'd miss the poignancy of the point. The point is that ideological liberalism (like all strict ideological adherence) is naive to the real world.

[pErvinalia]

Does anyone want to summarise his argument? I can't really hear what he's saying on my laptop speakers. It seems to be in mono, and bad mono at that.

Well, it's old. Just turn up the speakers and have a listen. Trying to summarize anything for you is just a bad road to go down. You just start playing games and picking fights. If you're interested, just listen to it and address points you find interesting, relevant or rebuttable.

I just told you I can't hear what is being said.

If you don't want to summarise, fine. I assume it is as Hermit said and it's the usual naive arguments. Been addressed a million times..

[Hermit]

...I replied to Coito's general drift here already. No point repeating myself. He'll just ignore it again, and maybe start yet another thread on why Nazis should be allowed to spread their anti-human-rights propaganda.

His support for letting Nazis speak freely is rather puzzling, given what they do to freedom of speech every single time they gain power.

I did not ignore the post to which you linked - I don't respond to every post, nor do I have to, nor did it raise a point to which I thought argument was necessary. ...

What a curious sentence. You say you did not ignore the post, and explain why you did ignore it in the same breath. I do regard you as the best debater among the dozen or so forum members who defend right wing views ("I am not a right winger" objection in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... ), but this sentence of yours is not an example of your skills.

I find it odd that you are unable to puzzle out why a person would be in favor of the same rights of freedom of speech for those who would, if given the chance, take away those rights.

I gave my reason in the post you ignored until just now, beginning with this question: "Is the irony lost on you that the Lord Chancellor lost his life precisely because of his unshakeably principled stand?"


Note my comment at the bottom of that post. It indicates that my view regarding the limits of freedom of speech has changed quite recently. It is provisional to the extent that at this stage I'm just trying it out for size. At the moment I feel like I'm only playing the role of a devil's advocate.

[pErvinalia]

I do regard you as the best debater among the dozen or so forum members who defend right wing views.

That's a pretty low bar...

[Hermit]

All crystal clear. No doubt about it. Whether all is right is another matter.

What is this "right" you speak of?

The kind of right that is the antonym of "wrong".

[Brian Peacock]

Nazis are not a protected group.

Freedom of speech is a right of protection from interference by state, not a right to say and do whatever you like.

[rainbow]

[rainbow]

We in Africa give them the right to swim.
...in crocodile infested waters.

[Svartalf]

When you don't give them ful dictatorship rights...

[Forty Two]

Who gives a shit. If the world changes then the best arguments will be found to justify the state of things. -arguments shmarguments...

Not surprised at all that you would applaud that. It's your kind of argument.

Not surprised you'd miss the poignancy of the point. The point is that ideological liberalism (like all strict ideological adherence) is naive to the real world.

So how does that make "who gives a shit?" poignant? Because real world practicalities impact our judgments, it's a "who gives a shit?" issue?

Also, in what way, specifically, does the "real world" result in some people not being allowed to express their views, like people who may believe in authoritarian communism or authoritarian fascism, for example, not being permitted to write, publish or hold conferences. Lay out your case.

[Forty Two]

Does anyone want to summarise his argument? I can't really hear what he's saying on my laptop speakers. It seems to be in mono, and bad mono at that.

Well, it's old. Just turn up the speakers and have a listen. Trying to summarize anything for you is just a bad road to go down. You just start playing games and picking fights. If you're interested, just listen to it and address points you find interesting, relevant or rebuttable.

I just told you I can't hear what is being said.

If you don't want to summarise, fine. I assume it is as Hermit said and it's the usual naive arguments. Been addressed a million times..

Hermit did not say anything about the content of the video.

And, fuck off. I don't want to summarize anything for you, because you are full of it. Use your smartphone, then, to listen to the video. It's not believable that you can't hear the video. If you're not interested enough to listen to about 16 minutes of video, broken into four 4 minute chunks, then don't participate in the thread. Your contributions tend to be one-liners, platitudes and cliches, anyway.

[Forty Two]

...I replied to Coito's general drift here already. No point repeating myself. He'll just ignore it again, and maybe start yet another thread on why Nazis should be allowed to spread their anti-human-rights propaganda.

His support for letting Nazis speak freely is rather puzzling, given what they do to freedom of speech every single time they gain power.

I did not ignore the post to which you linked - I don't respond to every post, nor do I have to, nor did it raise a point to which I thought argument was necessary. ...

What a curious sentence. You say you did not ignore the post, and explain why you did ignore it in the same breath. I do regard you as the best debater among the dozen or so forum members who defend right wing views ("I am not a right winger" objection in 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... ), but this sentence of yours is not an example of your skills.

Jezus H. Christmas -- I don't respond to most posts on here. That doesn't mean I'm "ignoring" them. And, I'm not a right winger, and free speech is not a right wing issue. It's an a priori issue, it comes before politics, and is a necessary precursor to political discourse. I would urge you not to buy into the leftist definition of "right wing," because it tends to call someone who believes in an equal right of free speech for all, even distasteful views, as "right wing." Stephen Pinker addresses this well -

I find it odd that you are unable to puzzle out why a person would be in favor of the same rights of freedom of speech for those who would, if given the chance, take away those rights.

I gave my reason in the post you ignored until just now, beginning with this question: "Is the irony lost on you that the Lord Chancellor lost his life precisely because of his unshakeably principled stand?"

Note my comment at the bottom of that post. It indicates that my view regarding the limits of freedom of speech has changed quite recently. It is provisional to the extent that at this stage I'm just trying it out for size. At the moment I feel like I'm only playing the role of a devil's advocate.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I understand your question -- people lose their lives all the time, it's not because of free speech, is it? How is free speech to blame?

[Forty Two]

All crystal clear. No doubt about it. Whether all is right is another matter.

What is this "right" you speak of?

The kind of right that is the antonym of "wrong".

The notion that only things that are right, as in the antonym of wrong, are to be allowed and freely utterable/publishable, is a really strange notion. It's bizarre that folks might actually advance such after the last 50+ years of thought on the issue....

Religious theologians and theocrats generally have no problem with such a limitation, because they have a ready-made menu of what is right and what is wrong, and when you go on the wrong side, it's inarguable. What's bizarre is seeing this idea come from the direction of postermodern leftists, who generally assert that there is no "right" and "wrong" merely relative cultural norms, and that we can't say anything is right and wrong, other than relative to a particular social construct. Given that, it is bizarre indeed for someone on the left to assert that speech expressing "wrong" ideas should be barred or limited in some way. On what basis are they claiming one right is more right than another, or that a wrong is "wrong?"

[Forty Two]

Nazis are not a protected group.

Freedom of speech is a right of protection from interference by state, not a right to say and do whatever you like.

Sure, and it protects individuals, not just groups. Nazis are a protected group, because a group of individuals have a right of free speech. Since when does the right of free speech only protect certain groups of people?

And, indeed, the right is protection from restraints on speech by the State, which is what this thread is about - the idea of the ACLU representing a Nazi party against a governmental entity that was restricting their right to free speech by prohibiting them from demonstrating on a public street.

Are you suggesting that only certain groups, referred to as "protected groups," have a right not be interfered with by the government in that way? Nazis don't have that right? And, if so, where do you get that idea?

[Brian Peacock]

Nazis are not a protected group.

Freedom of speech is a right of protection from interference by state, not a right to say and do whatever you like.

Sure, and it protects individuals, not just groups. Nazis are a protected group, because a group of individuals have a right of free speech. Since when does the right of free speech only protect certain groups of people?

Huh?

You're trying gfar too hard to find fault there. Simply, there's no special protection for Nazi speech: Nazis are not a protected group.

And, indeed, the right is protection from restraints on speech by the State, which is what this thread is about - the idea of the ACLU representing a Nazi party against a governmental entity that was restricting their right to free speech by prohibiting them from demonstrating on a public street.

Nazis are not a protected group, immunised against legal limits or impositions, public order considerations, or whatever.

Are you suggesting that only certain groups, referred to as "protected groups," have a right not be interfered with by the government in that way? Nazis don't have that right? And, if so, where do you get that idea?

No, I'm implying that Nazis think that their intolerant position should be protected and that other considerations shouldn't apply to them - because they're speshul.