Should there be Nazi or white supremacist speech bans? No!

Cross-posted from Why Evolution is True.

There are so many evidently biased articles in the German shit press and all of them targeted against Trump.

The most ludicrous accusation that Trump reacted too late in his comments. Well, not all statesmen can be as alert, swift and decisive as Mutti Merkel. That's her hallmark, unless I was on the wrong drug in recent years.

The violence of Charlottesville is being instrumentalized against a democratically elected leader AND free speech. The latter hardly surprising in a country where Holocaust denial is a crime. And these Germans in all sincerety have the audacity to claim Free Speech in their constitution. Anyway, here is an excellent post with two videos with C. Hitchens.

Should there be Nazi or white supremacist speech bans? No!

I have to say that I’ve been pretty disappointed the past few days with those readers who have said that Nazi and white supremacist speech should be banned, and that the U.S. should enact “hate speech” laws, similar to those in Canada and some European countries, making certain sentiments simply illegal to express in public. Likewise with symbols like Nazi flags with swastikas. The reasons offered were that such “hate speech” is likely to cause violence, either now or in the future. These people were, in effect, asking for a reinterpretation of the First Amendment, which allows all public speech save that that constitutes personal harassment in the workplace, is defamatory, or is a direct instigation of violence on the spot: “fighting words”.

How quickly liberals become authoritarians and opponents of free speech when they hear speech that they consider vile!

Well, what happened in Charlottesville was not a violation of the First Amendment, and the violence arose not because the right-wingers called for people to attack blacks, Jews, or immigrants. It happened because both sides came looking for a confrontation, carried guns or clubs, and the police, unprepared, did a lousy job of planning and keeping the groups apart. Had the bigots and Nazi sympathizers just marched, and not said a word, the same thing would have happened. Would you object to the mere presence of such people as a provocation?

And if you say that pro-Nazi speech or Holocaust denialism should be banned because it will lead to a revival of Nazi Germany, that’s simply not a credible view since the threat isn’t even remotely there, and, more imporant, what stifles the threat is free speech against Nazi speech. If you ban white supremacist and bigoted speech, it does not get rid of pro-white, anti-Jewish and anti-black sentiments; it merely drives them underground where they fester. Remember, some of the first acts the Nazis did when they got power was to prevent speech criticizing the government, and to persecute and kill people who spoke out against them.

This clip shows how foolish white supremacists look when they’re allowed to air their views. This is an interview by Christopher Hitchens of white supremacist and head of the White Aryan Resistance John Metzger (and his more notorious father Tom, who calls in). Can anybody worry about the country becoming ruled by these people when they’re allowed to speak freely and be criticized freely?

And if you say, well, Trump could put these “Nazis” in power, so we’ll become like National Socialist Germany, then the best remedy against that is to allow Americans to speak freely against the government. Thanks to the First Amendment, the Trump regime cannot simply ban speech to criticizing a fascist or authoritarian regime.

Others say, “Well, hate-speech laws have worked well in Europe and Canada, so let’s have them here.” But how do you know they’ve “worked”? Have they eliminated hatred and bigotry? Where are the data? Have the absence of such laws in the U.S. led to more violence in our country, or is any increased violence the result of other factors like less restrictive gun laws? Where are your data showing that the First Amendment is an inferior alternative to “hate speech” laws?

This raises the problem, one that Hitchens often emphasized (see video below), that if YOU decide that some speech is so vile it must be banned, you are establishing a principle that those in power can do the same thing; and that raises the possibility that speech that you favor can be banned. After all, one person’s hate speech is another person’s free speech. Speech that criticizes Islam, or even cartoons like Jesus and Mo, are seen by some Muslims as “hate speech” just as vile as people see white supremacist or pro-Nazi speech.  Those Muslims see “our” free criticism of Islam as verbal violence, likely to instigate attacks on Muslims in Western countries. Do not doubt that; we’ve heard these sentiments repeatedly. Do you think that if Linda Sarsour were (Ceiling Cat help us) President of the United States, she wouldn’t try to ban anti-Islam “hate speech”? Should we then ban Jesus and Mo or any criticism of Islam? No! If you give an authority the right to be The Decider, then don’t be surprised when that Decider finds some speech you favor to be “hateful” and therefore worthy of banning.

full post here

full post here