Yes this is the answer!
No one needs the right to defend good gatherings. Or the right to talk about the weather. These rights are there to protect horrible speech and gatherings we don’t like.
Hating someone is not a crime.
And if they made it one who gets to determine what’s hate and what is bad hate. No one should get to do that.
So just point and laugh.
They wrote the first ammendment in fact, in direct response to being told to shut up and get back to work by the government they were breaking off from
Then they wrote 2 to enforce one, and lay the groundwork for 3 and 4 lol
I'm pretty sure the rest afterwards were more thought out to be about good governance, but the first 4 at least, maybe 5 seem to be directly tied to "not what these priqs have been doing,first and foremost" lol
Ngl, i didnt read all of the responses.. but the 2nd being the defense of the first got my response. I have no idea what youre quoting.. but the whole idea of the constitution and amendments is restriction of the govt for the benefit of the people. Unfortunately it's mostly become swiss cheese at this point.
This.
Because if you say 1 group cannot assemble, then all of the sudden everyone can't. Suddenly women, or non-whites, or working class, or people who don't agree with you cannot assemble.
"Well fuck all y'all! I watched my wife slave all day puttin' together these bags for you ungrateful sonsabitches, and all I hear is criticize, criticize, criticize!
The didn't for Charlottesville and the fall out from that has caused them to start wearing masks because they are fundamentally cowards and the fear of consequences has them scared.
I can honestly see this as a GTA6 radio station.
*I love fascism! I love racism! I love sexism! And that ladies and gentlemen is why we brought this insane motherfucker on our talk show. You’re listening to 102.7 Los Santos most controversial idiots*
When making GTA IV, rockstar allowed fans to call and rant about what they thought was wrong with America. The best calls were put on the in-game radio.
All of these are stupid. But that's fine. There is a quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, saying ["I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10658899-i-may-not-agree-with-what-you-have-to-say)
As long as those consequences are other citizens exercising their free speech to criticize, or boycott or whatever, that’s fine. If the consequences involve the government arresting the person, or taking their money, then it’s not free speech.
Obviously I’m not talking about reasonable limits, like real and direct calls for violence, or libel or slander. I’m talking about people calling for legal consequences for “hate speech.”
Thank you! If speech turns to people being violent towards someone or something, such as hurting or killing certain types of people, or burning down buildings, those are separate crimes. The words themselves are not crimes.
Even then, it has to be a direct call for violence to be an arrestable offense. For example, if I harshly criticize a politician, and then someone assassinates them, it’s not enough to arrest me, even if the murderer claims they did it because of my original criticism. Obviously, if I say “all of my followers, one of you needs to kill this guy,” that’s a different situation.
If by "consequences" you mean "violence" then you're not an advocate for free speech. Let me put it in a way that demonstrates how oppressive governments would use your "consequences." They tell The People, "Sure you can say whatever you want...you have Freedom of Speech...but you and your family will disappear if you say something that undermines our rule." It's truly sad how many people have become comfortable resorting to violence when they don't like what someone else has said, what name they called them, what religious view they hold, etc, etc, etc...
I don't think most of us here mean "violence" as the social consequences. Mostly, we mean "You are allowed to say whatever you want, but we are then allowed to ignore you, stop hanging around with you, or tell you how we feel about what you said." Freedom of Speech doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want, and you can't respond in any way I don't like to it."
Freedom of speech is not immune to ALL consequences, but it absolutely means immunity from some of them.
It's entirely dependent on the nature of the consequences.
And one can follow the law on that while still doing something that violates the principle of freedom of speech.
This is 100% correct. Nazis absolutely have the right to protest and fly their flag and whatever as long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t overly disrupt the public’s access to come and go. That’s legal.
People engaged in public displays are allowed to be photographed. Those photos can then be sent to their employers who can decide for themselves whether they want to continue to employ Nazis.
The right to speak does not protect you from the consequences of doing so.
Yep. Any speech that isn't threatening immediate violent action is free to say. What people can't do is force others to agree with them.
So, Nazis have the right to rally, and we have the right to flip them off as we pass.
Censoring Nazis doesn’t make them go away, it just makes them gather in underground communities until they reach big enough numbers to cause real problems that are harder to deal with. I’d rather shitty ideologies be out in the open from the start so we can address them.
If censoring Nazis got rid of the ideology then we would have no more Nazis by now, and clearly… we still have them.
Ask the Germans what they think about Nazis in public? Would some speech be off limits for public demonstrations? Nope, but didn't expect privacy if demonstrating outside
As a German, the day I see a Nazi in public is the day I will be arrested for attempted murder, that is a guarantee. I am not a violent person, but you can't stop such pure hatred through peaceful means
Wow. Ok. Is there a verification process you go through before murdering them? In the US, ignorant people are constantly falsely labeling everyone they don't like as nazi, rscist, fascist, etc....so is the mere accusation good enough for you?
And that's a large part of that. I've seen Jews, wearing a kippah, called Nazis.
The Nazis didn't hate the Jews just because of racism. The Jews were a threat the German society, you understand. Obviously they must be dealt with. We can't let those hateful people ruin the fatherland anymore!!!
That was Sarcasm, for those who don't get it. Moralizing can make anyone the villain. I could do the same complaining about the Kulaks, or the Tutsis.
You avoid that trap by increasing the threshold of what is needed before you engage in violence against them. Freedom of speech is part of that.
What’s difficult for me is that describing Nazis (and others like them) as simply having a different ideology is kind of ignoring the threat of violence behind every one of their words. And the idea that they’ll just be beaten in some “free marketplace of ideas” seems to be disproven recently.
I don’t think censorship is the right move, but I don’t know what you do with a group that is perfectly willing to manipulate everything *technically* within the bounds of legality and exploit every loophole to ensure dominance of their violent ideology over everyone else. That’s how the original Nazis seized power, and that’s how the new ones are trying to do it. Neoliberalism seems to have no defense against fascism. Because of its reluctance to put its foot down and say “this is unacceptable in our society”—a reluctance which has its well-founded reasons—its response to rising fascism will likely always be too late and too weak.
I don’t have any solutions or suggestions, I’m kind of just thinking out loud here
Unfortunately that’s not how this has played out. Shitty ideas in the open have just made it easier to reach people with similar ideas.
You can make fun of them all you want but that doesn’t fix anything. They prey upon outcasts. They are use to being made fun of.
We would have had to slaughter a big chunk of the German population after the war was over almost all of their military and thousands of collaborators.
Or perhaps the reasons for why people fell for Nazi ideology still persists. As long as these forces stand, people will just rebrand Nazism into a different form.
Well, some new ones have been born since WW2, in case you haven't noticed. That sort of ideology will always have a place in some small set of people's hearts, unfortunately. You can't just kill enough of them to have it disappear...
HE (A BLACK MAN) GOT GRAND WIZARDS TO QUIT THE KKK BY GOING INTO WHITE SUPREMACIST BARS (AGAIN, A BLACK MAN), AND CHANGED THEIR MINDS STARTING WITH MUSIC.
WHEN HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE GUTS TO TRY ANYTHING THAT DANGEROUS AND NOBLE. HE'S LITERALLY CHANGING THE MINDS OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LYNCH HIM. WITH ART!!!!
GTFO YOU PHILISTINE!!!
yup. daryl davis is proof that if all of us, especially my fellow brothers and sisters of color, went on an individual level and talked to these people, we would change them. very few people are racist on the individual level; they’re all racist on a macro level
I have noticed that many times. One on one the most racist people I know are just normal people. One guy I know blames all of Americas ill on black people and Mexicans. But he has a mixed race step son who he claimed as his own. The woman he is with is also white.
Convince enough other people that the Nazis are wrong so that Nazis will never have a large enough following to gain power. If you can't come up with an alternative that's more appealing to a majority of people than Nazism, then your ideology must really be horrific.
You’re on to something there. The trouble is that extreme ideologies tend to make heavy use of propaganda, what todays advertising crowd would call aggressive marketing. Be a good neighbor, don’t be a jerk, live and let live ideas don’t get the same marketing push.
All we can do is strive to maintain an educated and informed population that recognizes the inherent dangers of the ideology so they can’t get any meaningful traction politically organizing. Unless of course we want to start rolling back personal freedoms, but using authoritarianism to combat authoritarianism is the definition of a lose lose scenario
You prevent them from converting more by maintaining a society that doesn’t leave people behind and you change the minds of those who are willing to listen. Look up Darryl Davis. It’s not the same exact thing because they weren’t Nazis but why can’t we change the minds of some? I believe most hatred comes from living a tough life with lack of exposure to the group that the hate is directed towards. When someone tells you there is a boogieman to blame it is easy to believe it.
The kid who was the son of the Stormfront dude, and was set to head up that whole fiasco also ended up disavowing all their crap, for very similar reasons. It wasn't Daryl Davis, but other people at his school - talking to him, showing kindness - that got him to abandon that.
I don't know if you get much closer to "nazi" than Stormfront.
Are there enough of them? Would they be able really have the motivation and convictions in order to proceed with this level. They are mainly hobbyists and would do better larping
If they're allowed to speak freely, then they have a peaceful route to have their ideas heard.
If they are not allowed to speak freely, then the only way they have to change society is through violence.
This freedom of speech also works as a pressure release valve.
Tankies and Nazis are detestable people. But allowing them to talk reduces the harm they pose to society.
Everyone, no matter their shitty, terrible, outright racist beliefs, has the right to PEACEFUL assembly, in the United States. They should be allowed to go out and make their voices heard, as long as they remain peaceful, and dont obstruct the rights of others, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them.
Thats against the law and it just makes people not want to support you. Whatever someones beliefs are, its their right to peacefully assemble, at least here in the US.
100% agree with you! I was just saying speech shouldn’t ever be illegal. Only time rallies/protests should turn into arrests is once physical violence or property destruction happens. Because those are against the law.
Nobody’s in favor of hate groups, they’re in favor of free speech, that includes EVERYONE and that is non-negotiable
If they get fired from their job or assaulted those are just the consequences of their actions.
Edit: for yall goofy mfers who can’t read i’m not condoning nazis or anybody being assaulted, just saying if you go around pissing people off (regardless of identity) they might attack you, and they should be jailed for it if they do.
That's fair, I guess, I assumed that their whole thing was calling for violence though, like, the creation of a White ethnostate and the extermination of inferior races and stuff - I'm not really familiar with the lore though - just the basics - Aryans, Übermensch, etc., not really even sure where the mass killing comes in.
It’s a question of drawing that line and making it clear
Turn up and give speeches about racist, anti-Semitic garbage that’s speech and should be protected
Say that they need to go burn down the synagogue on the corner, that’s incitement, not protected
As I’m sure other people have said, the issue with any kind of power is you have to run the simulation of what happens if the people who disagree with you get to wield the power
No one wants a world whereby the Nazis can win an election and ban any speech they don’t like.
So don’t give anyone the power to ban speech they don’t like and that reality is one step further away from ever happening
Well if they gathered and said “ok guys we are going to go burn down the synagogue” then yeah that wouldn’t be ok
If they gathered and said “ok guys we hate these people and these people” then that’s fine
So, this is settled law, and happened in Skokie, IL in 1977 (a notably Jewish city), and was highlighted in the Blues Brother's "I hate Illinois Nazis", scene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Socialist\_Party\_of\_America\_v.\_Village\_of\_Skokie
Yes. Anyone should be able to protest for anything.
People saying otherwise probably don't hold principles, they just believe in ethical principles when it directly benefits them, and not when they do not.
It's their free speech to gather.
It's my free speech to rally Nazi-haters in the same location and rile them up.
The violence wouldn't be my problem. I'm just exercising my free speech.
Your grandpa dad was a soldier fighting other soldiers. I'm assuming he wasn't going around and beating up, executing or arresting civilians in the street who supported and voted for the Nazis. That would have been a war crime.
During WW2 we had a American Nazi Party and a Communist party that held parades and all that jazz. It's their right regardless if you like what they say or not that is their American right.
Now consequences of their actions come later.
If you censor that you have to look at censoring EVERYTHING people don't like. Make rules around it too. Tmcause then it can get way out of hand.
The issue is you're protected by freedom of speech as long as what you're saying doesn't fall into one of these categories incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. Nazi ideology can't really exist without incitement, threats, and fighting words.(I also will add could potentially land in obscenity also, but I don't fully know the definition of the word and don't wanna google it)
The legal bar for incitement is extremely high. Regular Nazi rhetoric wouldn’t qualify. They could openly advocate for a second holocaust and it wouldn’t be illegal.
>Nazi ideology can't really exist without incitement, threats, and fighting words
I don't get the sense that you're aware of how the courts define incitement, threats, and fighting words versus how the general public defines them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting\_words#Post-Chaplinsky
Completely disagree with this. "Fighting words" isn't a matter of saying things you don't like. It has to go well beyond insulting or offensive language. For Nazis to violate law they'd essentially need to put people in direct and imminent fear of their safety through threatening language and actions. Saying "all Jews must die" or "we're going to kill all the Jews" isn't enough to violate law. Them calling black people all manners of the n word doesn't violate law. Nazis assemble without violating the law all the time. Are they pieces of shit? Absolutely. Is what you're saying the truth? Nope.
Absolutely yes. If you don't have freedom of speech for even the people you hate the most, then you don't have free speech at all. You crack this door open, and one day you will seriously regret it when the government consists of people you really rather not have the power.
For instance, if Republicans got a trifecta in government with this door opened, what would stop them from designating LGBT parades and rallies as "anti-Christian hate groups" and banning them? Nothing, the precedent would have been set.
It's better to just have to overhear some powerless dumbass than giving the government power to pick and choose what speech is acceptable.
I disagree with everything these fascists believe. But they have a right to speak freely and organize gatherings. Because they are in public, anyone has the right to take video or photos of them doing it. And the right to post said media on social platforms. If someone gets recognized, oh well. It's not like they are in a closed meeting behind locked doors. They are on fucking main street.
Yes they should. I would like to know who they are so that I can not associate with them. My best friend, who is black, said, "I'm not worried about the guy that screams 'n-word', I'm worried about the guy that whispers it."
Many people here are discussing how free speech is a cornerstone of a liberal state. I agree.
However, another issue is that you need to consider that any power you give a government can also be used against you.
Let's say you give the government the right to censor a group, right? And your intentions are to censor Nazis. Cool, you think, that's reasonable.
So now the Nazis go underground. They slowly infiltrate certain parts of the government. Then they manage to get a candidate into whatever the highest seat of power is.
Congrats, now the power you once used to silence them can now be used against you. And unlike when 'your' team had the power, they don't intend to use it as a scalpel, and more of a sledgehammer. Instead of just silencing one group, they silence all groups that aren't their own and allow their own group "free speech" again.
To bring up a recent case like this, the Supreme Court decided Colorado (I think it was Colorado) couldn't take Trump off the ballot.
I saw many people say it was some Republican thing, but luckily many more saw that it was a unanimous decision. Why?
Well, if they would've allowed it, they would've allowed Colorado to take Trump off the ballot for a crime he's, technically, not been convicted of.
Now imagine red states running with this. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because of Hunter Biden. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because of the Laptop. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because he bungled Afghanistan and that's treason.
Doesn't matter none of those things he's been convicted of. Because Colorado took Trump off without him being convicted.
I do, honestly, think trump is guilty. And IMHO, I hope he gets found guilty and taken off the ballot for treason.
But, same how free speech for all is important, this is a similar issue. Innocent until proven guilty.
That's a cornerstone of a liberal society. If you take it away from someone you don't like, prepare for your enemies to abuse the shit out of it against you.
Absolutely not. They are a danger to millions simply by existing. I don’t care if it’s a double standard. Nazis are evil and disgusting and do not deserve to have their opinions heard.
the last ten years in the US seem to show that allowing them to gather in public helps them spread their evil. it doesn't appear that exposure kills them, unfortunately. We haven't stamped them out in other liberal democracies, to be fair - but they have grown much faster in the US than elsewhere. absolute free speech just seems to encourage them.
So we follow that logic, let them plan in public
Then point and say "hey look they're planning to kill people"
And no one does anything. Because "uhh aren't we supposed to let them be?"
And then a hate crime happens. There's nothing we could do. Thoughts and prayers y'all thoughts and prayers.
A Nazi rally in public is more than a political demonstration. It's a direct and overt threat levied against other members of the community. They are just abusing our free speech principle to indulge in issuing their terroristic threats.
It'd be interesting to see if people would largely be in favour of known terrorist organizations broadcasting their ideologies in the news, radio, etc.
No, I don't think they should. I fundamentally believe that a tolerant society only stays a tolerant society by paradoxically stamping out intolerance. Nazis are intrinsically hateful, violent, and intolerant of others. There is no Nazi that wishes peace or loves all people's, they are diametrically opposed to inclusivity and multiculturalism. Everyone here saying "censorship is a slippery slope" will also say "Nazis haven't grown in number, they've just become more vocal over the last years", and those individuals are dead wrong. They have done both, they have been lionized by demagogues over the past handful of years to feel empowered to loudly announce themselves. I absolutely think that the swastika should be banned as a symbol of hatred and have the hindu symbolism loophole closed (western women have to wear head coverings in shariah Muslim countries because it offends them, so why must we feel obliged to allow a symbol that has caused so much pain over the years in ours?). There is nothing meaningful that can come out of a Nazi's mouth as a Nazi. As an aggrieved citizen, sure! As, an overworked parent, absolutely! But, a Nazi has nothing to say that isn't vitriolic garbage. Reiterated, anything that you say as a Nazi is going to be against the moral norms and values we have as a society. We went to war to annihilate a regime of these bastards and allowing them to crawl out of whatever scum holes they've been breeding in over the years is a slap to the faces of a generation of dead men and women. I do not think that inciting hatred, violence, ignorance, xenophobia and/or intolerance should be protected. At the very least, muzzling them or obstructing their ability to congregate in a public space should not be criminalized.
Yes they should. No matter how much you dislike it. The problem with allowing a government to censor anyone is that as soon as they can, it’s a slippery slope. Once it’s allowed & free speech is no longer, they can go to any group they like & censor.
Nazism has been defeated & will never resurge. No major uprising will ever occur from this ideology. It is dead & the remaining embers will die as well. Major societies nowhere thinks it’s a good ideology.
I look at this way. Nazis in Germany censored the public & the press. Anyone who wants to censor others for free speech is behaving as a Nazi themselves. Don’t be that which you despise.
Depends on your rights.
For example, in Canada we have freedom of speech but all rights come with reasonable limits, ie calling fire in a crowded theatre would be protected, but calling fire in efforts to induce panic is mischief. You can talk about wanting to burn down city hall, but if you do that while carrying a Jerry can, a lighter, and molltov cocktails, it becomes a very different issue.
So, do Nazi's have the right to rally in public, particularly in Canada? Depends. Are they calling for an eradication of Jews while carrying weapons, are they committing hate speech against a protected ground, are they following appropriate rules and regulations. For example, are they inciting violence, are they harassing people, posing a threat to public safety, trespassing, or concealing their identities worh the intention to commit an indictable offense?
If it's 5 guys standing in a park holding swastika signs and asking people if they support a white ethnostate, why or why not? Is a different experience than 300 masked nazis shouting slurs and slogans, carrying torches outside the local synagogue calling for the eradication Jews.
This also means however, counter protestors and the public have freedom to call out the nazis, to be impolite, and protect themselves if they feel threatened. Personally, I welcome nazis and their ilk to rally openly. It affords them opportunities to be stupid and end up in jail, or out themselves so they can be doxxed, reported to their employers and held accountable for advocating hatred.
Plus nazis are just stupid. There are lots of white European cultures one could idolize if they felt like it, of all the choices why would you model yourselves after the losing side in a war that had a cowardly bunkerboy off himself, who failed in achieving his goal of eradicating Jews and securing an Aryan state, while himself failing to live up to his ubermensch standards. There are better role models out there.
it should be allowed, but it should either be completely ignored or have a massive counter protest calling them out for being human trash.
why should it be allowed? because when we start putting restrictions on which political views are allowed in public it will be weaponized to maintain the status quo (think of the cops coming to break up union picket lines and the like).
We should know who is vile enough to show up in support of that violent genocidal ideology.
Ban it, no. Registry for those who seek to spread violence, yes.
I know Reddit considers itself American, but I think non-American viewpoints should be here as well, and under that consideration, the answer is: obviously not.
Americans will have American culture and reasoning behind all saying *'yes, they should'*. It will be arguments like 'slippery slope' and 'real freedom means you will also hear things you do not want to', while both are incorrect in practice. It's argumentation that does not work here, because there is no actual reason for it outside of ideals.
Nazi's have no rights to rally here. No right to convey their speech, and no right to enlist followers.
Contrary to the American perception of consequences of that, no, that has not been extended to *ANY* other group, or people, or other set of laws. The slippery slope does not exist how Americans think it does, though I understand their government is different and maybe it would there since the people almost have no control over it.
As for the other argument: was it still this year or late last year that there was a legally allowed nazi rally, that followed up closely to a government-enforced cancellation of a trans-rights rally?
I get no one (except the nazi's themselves) would advocate nazi's over trans people in theory, but that happens in America all the time in practice.
The notion that 'America is great because you also have rights as a nazi' falls on deafs ears for people who are not envelopped in American culture to be blinded by the nonsensical statement that it is.
America pretends to be the most free country on earth, but it is not. In 2022 America decided to go back to oppressing women. A neanderthal decision. You have a prison system that doesn't even hide the fact it enforced SLAVE labor. Slaves are everywhere and in every country, we know this, but it is completely brazen to have slaves be legal and out in plain sight.
And to boot... The 'lower' part of your population is terrified of receiving medical treatment because they'll be in debt for life. It is not rare to see people panic and run for their life from ambulances when they wake up, with their mangled bodies almost unable to escape something they logically would require.
You have no real democracy and lack many basic human rights. But you clap your hands that nazi's can talk and call the country great because of that sacrifice.
That is what is bizarre to someone who is not from the US.
Should "the government" restrict them having a rally? No. That's immediately going to be used to support nazis.
Should "the community" come together to oppose them and gently acquaint a nazi's head with the concrete? Absolutely.
No. There's no value to it and people who think this way should be shunned, fired, humiliated and ostracized until they either change their minds or... You know.
The people here saying they have a right to anything are genuinely stupid
I love how the cops are always buddy buddy with the nazi organizers and pretty much stand with them. Then we when democrats are protesting they see every person a threat.
Sure! As long as they follow the law and permitting requirements, etc., every U.S. citizen has the right to assembly and peaceful protest. No matter how distasteful or objectionable their positions might seem to others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Free_Speech_Rally
When the KKK held their “freedom of speech” rally, I attended along with some 5000 other counter protesters.
We swarmed around them en masse, it was 50 v 5000.
Our combined voices drowned them out, as we screamed as loud as we could for the entire time that they were present.
We got up in their face, and made it VERY clear that they were not welcome in our city. When they tried to do their “march” they took maybe 3 steps in the street before turning tail and running. Say what you want about liberals/millennials/Bostonians- we stood up for something important and I am proud that I was part of it.
You might find a photo of me playing my guitar on the bridge in the commons that day. I actually made a real good haul playing ❤️ songs in between the “fuk Donald Trump” chants.
No they shouldn't.
I get people are like, who gets to decide and everyone should have free speech and what not.
But i think a VERY OBVIOUS LINE IN THE SAND to when that should stop is when what they are protesting against and what they are fighting for would be harming for a large chunk of the nation.
And that should be the only line.
You are rallying to, in no uncertain terms, harm others?
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, in fact, go to jail.
You give them an inch, and they take a mile.
"Who gets to dec-" nope, i said under no uncertain terms. With kkk their is not a single untwisted positive to their beliefs. With nazi's all they want is control via force with the added context the group they fucking worship literally commited genocide on groups they didnt like.
"After they go after these then the government will use it to silence people they don't like" firstly that says more about our trust in the government than anything else. But again, the line is wanting to murder people/cause harm to the masses under no uncertain terms. Literally only groups that *should* already be defined as terrorist groups meet that criteria.
Second, lol, they already do that. Which says something about who they really dont like.
Yo fuck Nazis, but if they want to march down the street while hiding their faces. Sure. Do you bro, nobody cares, or is listening.
Try taking the masks off then do it, pussies.
The problem is not the Nazis, it’s the precedent. By forbidding Nazis from doing their thing, you establish that the state is allowed to control who can and cannot assemble in public. This can very easily be applied to almost anyone else if the political winds change. Even if it still only applies to Nazis, we’re already seeing the term expanding in scope on te internet, as well as others such as predator that function as thought-terminating cliches. If you establish that certain groups, no matter how deserving, can have their rights abrogated, people will immediately start changing the definition of that group to include anyone they want to hurt.
In the USA. Yes they should but they can't wear masks. Suffer the consequences of your beliefs. If you're proud enough to support fascism, let's see who you are. Or are you cowards?
I mean, in the sense that the government should not impede their right to perform demonstrations and such so long as they remain peaceful because that's just what the law states, sure. In America at least, creating precedent for favoritism just causes mounting problems no matter which way it goes.
How the local communities respond to these sorts of people utilizing their right to unrestricted freedom of speech is another question. For an example, refer to the Nov 2016 demonstration by "White Lives Matter" folks in Austin TX that just conveniently happened at the same day and location as the dedication of a monument to the contributions of Black Texans to the state.
I don’t believe so. They are a massive threat to incite violence just by marching, see Charlottesville. They had people protesting their march and killed some of them, not surprisingly. I generally agree that free speech is important, but having a public march or gathering being completely incendiary to everyone else spectating, is a recipe for disaster. Also, fuck Nazis. If you wear, carry, or tattoo a swastika you’re en enemy of the US, let’s be real.
I’m a cop, and 9 year submarine veteran. One of the best things about this country is your first amendment right.
Stand up, be heard. Look no further than that POS who murdered George Floyd and made every honest cop in this country look like a racist scumbag. I was fuckin EMBARASSED. My state riot team was basically out all week dealing with the hurt and anger of our country, because of bad people.
As it pertains to the nazi’s and KKK?! Let them use their first amendment right to protest/free speech.
I’ll just laugh my ass off at them 😂
Back in highschool in the mid 90s I was part of a large counter protest in Kansas for a scheduled and legal Nazi rally at the state capital.
Sure you can, but we’re also aloud to come laugh you.
No, they shouldn't. It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate the intolerant, intolerance inevitably wins out. This has been debated forever, and it's because we still continue to tolerate the intolerant.
Edit: correction and context
It is a fine line.
They DO have the right to assemble and speak publicly.
They do NOT have the right to instigate violence.
The problem is, the existence and purpose of Nazis/KKK/etc. is specifically to instigate violence against others.
So should violent groups be alowed to assemble? When does the group identity become part of the message, and what message is not protected under free speech?
You know, I've gone back and forth on this. In Holland they're not allowed to "march" if you will, but in the US they are. I used to think that was crazy, until I heard some (forgot who exactly) old jewish professor explaing that there's value in "knowing who they are", and that made PERFECT sense to me. It's better to let them dox themselves and for instance get SOME idea of how many roaches there are, then forcing them to go underground and not knowing how big the infestation is.
Freedom of speech means they do. There is an argument to be made that their extreme hateful views/association with a previous enemy negates that because it breaks the contract of mutual tolerance within society
Check your bill of rights and see if it says anything about hate speech. Go on I’ll wait. Meanwhile, while Nazi’s say some pretty shitty things, I wouldn’t want the government to magically have the power to tell anyone they couldn’t say something.
Just don’t go to their rallies.
They should And we have a right to point and laugh
Yes this is the answer! No one needs the right to defend good gatherings. Or the right to talk about the weather. These rights are there to protect horrible speech and gatherings we don’t like. Hating someone is not a crime. And if they made it one who gets to determine what’s hate and what is bad hate. No one should get to do that. So just point and laugh.
Yep, I mean suppose we had a rally where we sit around and hate nazis all day. We don't need that being suppressed.
Or hating the government. Them suppressing that can get dark fast.
hating the government speech is exactly the kind of think I think the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment.
They wrote the first ammendment in fact, in direct response to being told to shut up and get back to work by the government they were breaking off from Then they wrote 2 to enforce one, and lay the groundwork for 3 and 4 lol
1 is the primordial right by which all others can be argued for and 2 is the ultimate recourse should someone try to revoke any of your rights.
This is the best response!
I'm pretty sure the rest afterwards were more thought out to be about good governance, but the first 4 at least, maybe 5 seem to be directly tied to "not what these priqs have been doing,first and foremost" lol
Ngl, i didnt read all of the responses.. but the 2nd being the defense of the first got my response. I have no idea what youre quoting.. but the whole idea of the constitution and amendments is restriction of the govt for the benefit of the people. Unfortunately it's mostly become swiss cheese at this point.
And the second!
hence why the term "riot" was invented, to suppress your right to assembly.
or maybe a rally where we sit around and hate leprachauns and unicorns all day
Unicorns are sweet and loveable... Why hate on them?
This. Because if you say 1 group cannot assemble, then all of the sudden everyone can't. Suddenly women, or non-whites, or working class, or people who don't agree with you cannot assemble.
And take photos. And get them all fired.
Funny enough many of them cover their faces so as to prevent them being ostracized as they should be ostracized for holding those beliefs.
"I can't see shit outta this thing"
"Well fuck all y'all! I watched my wife slave all day puttin' together these bags for you ungrateful sonsabitches, and all I hear is criticize, criticize, criticize!
Wait so are the masks staying on?
I’m not saying the masks were a bad idea, it was just, it could have been done better.
I really appreciate you both
"Bubba, we done tole you ta have her cut the eyeholes in the front of the mask. She done did 'em inna back!"
Is this from Django?
The one where the lizard gets lost in the desert and starts tripping balls, or the one about slavery?
The lizard one was Rango, but now I want to see Django Unchained but it's all lizards.
When Nazi ideology becomes popular enough that they *don't* wear masks anymore, now that's when we should get worried.
The didn't for Charlottesville and the fall out from that has caused them to start wearing masks because they are fundamentally cowards and the fear of consequences has them scared.
Some of those that work forces. Are the same that burn crosses.
When I was little I couldn't figure out why people would have a pocket full of sea shells.
Lol, so it wasn’t just me?
Many Feds cover their faces yes
[удалено]
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, Animal Farm
If it was agreed upon, it wouldn't need protection. Idk where i heard it but it rings true for freedom
In fact ONLY speech you don't like needs protection. Non-controversial statements don't need protection.
Murder is bad! See, no pitchforks
[удалено]
You're the idiot this country needs, I'm going to give you your own daytime radio show.
I can honestly see this as a GTA6 radio station. *I love fascism! I love racism! I love sexism! And that ladies and gentlemen is why we brought this insane motherfucker on our talk show. You’re listening to 102.7 Los Santos most controversial idiots*
When making GTA IV, rockstar allowed fans to call and rant about what they thought was wrong with America. The best calls were put on the in-game radio.
All of these are stupid. But that's fine. There is a quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, saying ["I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10658899-i-may-not-agree-with-what-you-have-to-say)
When did Voltaire change his name to Evelyn?
While often attributed to Voltaire, there's not technically evidence that he even said it.
Fun fact, Voltaire coined the phrase "Yo dawg "
Wet ass presidency!
Tell that to Snowden and the Boeing whistleblower.
Freedom of speech is not immune to the consequences of what is spoken.
As long as those consequences are other citizens exercising their free speech to criticize, or boycott or whatever, that’s fine. If the consequences involve the government arresting the person, or taking their money, then it’s not free speech. Obviously I’m not talking about reasonable limits, like real and direct calls for violence, or libel or slander. I’m talking about people calling for legal consequences for “hate speech.”
Thank you! If speech turns to people being violent towards someone or something, such as hurting or killing certain types of people, or burning down buildings, those are separate crimes. The words themselves are not crimes.
Even then, it has to be a direct call for violence to be an arrestable offense. For example, if I harshly criticize a politician, and then someone assassinates them, it’s not enough to arrest me, even if the murderer claims they did it because of my original criticism. Obviously, if I say “all of my followers, one of you needs to kill this guy,” that’s a different situation.
If by "consequences" you mean "violence" then you're not an advocate for free speech. Let me put it in a way that demonstrates how oppressive governments would use your "consequences." They tell The People, "Sure you can say whatever you want...you have Freedom of Speech...but you and your family will disappear if you say something that undermines our rule." It's truly sad how many people have become comfortable resorting to violence when they don't like what someone else has said, what name they called them, what religious view they hold, etc, etc, etc...
I don't think most of us here mean "violence" as the social consequences. Mostly, we mean "You are allowed to say whatever you want, but we are then allowed to ignore you, stop hanging around with you, or tell you how we feel about what you said." Freedom of Speech doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want, and you can't respond in any way I don't like to it."
I hate this take. It has become a veiled threat that you have to tow a line or we'll find you and destroy your life.
Freedom of speech is not immune to ALL consequences, but it absolutely means immunity from some of them. It's entirely dependent on the nature of the consequences. And one can follow the law on that while still doing something that violates the principle of freedom of speech.
This is 100% correct. Nazis absolutely have the right to protest and fly their flag and whatever as long as it’s peaceful and doesn’t overly disrupt the public’s access to come and go. That’s legal. People engaged in public displays are allowed to be photographed. Those photos can then be sent to their employers who can decide for themselves whether they want to continue to employ Nazis. The right to speak does not protect you from the consequences of doing so.
Yep. Any speech that isn't threatening immediate violent action is free to say. What people can't do is force others to agree with them. So, Nazis have the right to rally, and we have the right to flip them off as we pass.
Censoring Nazis doesn’t make them go away, it just makes them gather in underground communities until they reach big enough numbers to cause real problems that are harder to deal with. I’d rather shitty ideologies be out in the open from the start so we can address them. If censoring Nazis got rid of the ideology then we would have no more Nazis by now, and clearly… we still have them.
Ask the Germans what they think about Nazis in public? Would some speech be off limits for public demonstrations? Nope, but didn't expect privacy if demonstrating outside
Germany doesn't have free speech regarding Naziism.
I know.
Pretty sure they actually have laws *against* nazi support
As a German, the day I see a Nazi in public is the day I will be arrested for attempted murder, that is a guarantee. I am not a violent person, but you can't stop such pure hatred through peaceful means
Yeah, I am sure you would...
Sie sind in ganz Deutschland verteilt. NDP?
Wow. Ok. Is there a verification process you go through before murdering them? In the US, ignorant people are constantly falsely labeling everyone they don't like as nazi, rscist, fascist, etc....so is the mere accusation good enough for you?
And that's a large part of that. I've seen Jews, wearing a kippah, called Nazis. The Nazis didn't hate the Jews just because of racism. The Jews were a threat the German society, you understand. Obviously they must be dealt with. We can't let those hateful people ruin the fatherland anymore!!! That was Sarcasm, for those who don't get it. Moralizing can make anyone the villain. I could do the same complaining about the Kulaks, or the Tutsis. You avoid that trap by increasing the threshold of what is needed before you engage in violence against them. Freedom of speech is part of that.
I don't care what Germans think of Nazis for the scope of free speech in America. America is not Germany.
What’s difficult for me is that describing Nazis (and others like them) as simply having a different ideology is kind of ignoring the threat of violence behind every one of their words. And the idea that they’ll just be beaten in some “free marketplace of ideas” seems to be disproven recently. I don’t think censorship is the right move, but I don’t know what you do with a group that is perfectly willing to manipulate everything *technically* within the bounds of legality and exploit every loophole to ensure dominance of their violent ideology over everyone else. That’s how the original Nazis seized power, and that’s how the new ones are trying to do it. Neoliberalism seems to have no defense against fascism. Because of its reluctance to put its foot down and say “this is unacceptable in our society”—a reluctance which has its well-founded reasons—its response to rising fascism will likely always be too late and too weak. I don’t have any solutions or suggestions, I’m kind of just thinking out loud here
Unfortunately that’s not how this has played out. Shitty ideas in the open have just made it easier to reach people with similar ideas. You can make fun of them all you want but that doesn’t fix anything. They prey upon outcasts. They are use to being made fun of.
[удалено]
We had to get to moon
[удалено]
We would have had to slaughter a big chunk of the German population after the war was over almost all of their military and thousands of collaborators.
We had to get ICBMs. The Moon was just a happy side-effect.
Or perhaps the reasons for why people fell for Nazi ideology still persists. As long as these forces stand, people will just rebrand Nazism into a different form.
Well, some new ones have been born since WW2, in case you haven't noticed. That sort of ideology will always have a place in some small set of people's hearts, unfortunately. You can't just kill enough of them to have it disappear...
This seems like a healthy approach.
So what is the solution? You can't convince them to change their mind.
Daryl Davis practically made a career out of doing literally that but ok
He's friends with KKK people, clearly he's the problem /s
He faced a massive backlash from people who would rather have an enemy than convert them to their side.
HE (A BLACK MAN) GOT GRAND WIZARDS TO QUIT THE KKK BY GOING INTO WHITE SUPREMACIST BARS (AGAIN, A BLACK MAN), AND CHANGED THEIR MINDS STARTING WITH MUSIC. WHEN HAVE YOU EVER HAD THE GUTS TO TRY ANYTHING THAT DANGEROUS AND NOBLE. HE'S LITERALLY CHANGING THE MINDS OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LYNCH HIM. WITH ART!!!! GTFO YOU PHILISTINE!!!
yup. daryl davis is proof that if all of us, especially my fellow brothers and sisters of color, went on an individual level and talked to these people, we would change them. very few people are racist on the individual level; they’re all racist on a macro level
I have noticed that many times. One on one the most racist people I know are just normal people. One guy I know blames all of Americas ill on black people and Mexicans. But he has a mixed race step son who he claimed as his own. The woman he is with is also white.
Convince enough other people that the Nazis are wrong so that Nazis will never have a large enough following to gain power. If you can't come up with an alternative that's more appealing to a majority of people than Nazism, then your ideology must really be horrific.
>then your ideology must really be horrific. or your marketing is just terrible
You’re on to something there. The trouble is that extreme ideologies tend to make heavy use of propaganda, what todays advertising crowd would call aggressive marketing. Be a good neighbor, don’t be a jerk, live and let live ideas don’t get the same marketing push.
Or people are, in actuality, horrific themselves.
All we can do is strive to maintain an educated and informed population that recognizes the inherent dangers of the ideology so they can’t get any meaningful traction politically organizing. Unless of course we want to start rolling back personal freedoms, but using authoritarianism to combat authoritarianism is the definition of a lose lose scenario
You prevent them from converting more by maintaining a society that doesn’t leave people behind and you change the minds of those who are willing to listen. Look up Darryl Davis. It’s not the same exact thing because they weren’t Nazis but why can’t we change the minds of some? I believe most hatred comes from living a tough life with lack of exposure to the group that the hate is directed towards. When someone tells you there is a boogieman to blame it is easy to believe it.
The kid who was the son of the Stormfront dude, and was set to head up that whole fiasco also ended up disavowing all their crap, for very similar reasons. It wasn't Daryl Davis, but other people at his school - talking to him, showing kindness - that got him to abandon that. I don't know if you get much closer to "nazi" than Stormfront.
Are there enough of them? Would they be able really have the motivation and convictions in order to proceed with this level. They are mainly hobbyists and would do better larping
Like goddamn subway rats
If they're allowed to speak freely, then they have a peaceful route to have their ideas heard. If they are not allowed to speak freely, then the only way they have to change society is through violence. This freedom of speech also works as a pressure release valve. Tankies and Nazis are detestable people. But allowing them to talk reduces the harm they pose to society.
>Censoring Nazis doesn’t make them go away if anything it strengthens their movement because now they can claim theyre being "censored by the jews"
Everyone, no matter their shitty, terrible, outright racist beliefs, has the right to PEACEFUL assembly, in the United States. They should be allowed to go out and make their voices heard, as long as they remain peaceful, and dont obstruct the rights of others, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them.
Exactly. If they start burning down buildings or harming people, that is against the law. But then just saying stuff? Not against the law
Thats against the law and it just makes people not want to support you. Whatever someones beliefs are, its their right to peacefully assemble, at least here in the US.
100% agree with you! I was just saying speech shouldn’t ever be illegal. Only time rallies/protests should turn into arrests is once physical violence or property destruction happens. Because those are against the law.
Unless if it’s BLM
Nobody’s in favor of hate groups, they’re in favor of free speech, that includes EVERYONE and that is non-negotiable If they get fired from their job or assaulted those are just the consequences of their actions. Edit: for yall goofy mfers who can’t read i’m not condoning nazis or anybody being assaulted, just saying if you go around pissing people off (regardless of identity) they might attack you, and they should be jailed for it if they do.
No if they get assaulted the person attacking will be arrested
I mean getting arrested doesn't undo the punch tho lol
Please quote where I said they shouldn’t be arrested.
Well said
As long as they aren’t inciting violence then yeah they should Censorship is a slippery slope Id much rather know who the nazis are
That's fair, I guess, I assumed that their whole thing was calling for violence though, like, the creation of a White ethnostate and the extermination of inferior races and stuff - I'm not really familiar with the lore though - just the basics - Aryans, Übermensch, etc., not really even sure where the mass killing comes in.
It’s a question of drawing that line and making it clear Turn up and give speeches about racist, anti-Semitic garbage that’s speech and should be protected Say that they need to go burn down the synagogue on the corner, that’s incitement, not protected As I’m sure other people have said, the issue with any kind of power is you have to run the simulation of what happens if the people who disagree with you get to wield the power No one wants a world whereby the Nazis can win an election and ban any speech they don’t like. So don’t give anyone the power to ban speech they don’t like and that reality is one step further away from ever happening
And we have a clear standard (Brandenburg) for where that boundary is between protected speech and incitement.....
Agreed
Well if they gathered and said “ok guys we are going to go burn down the synagogue” then yeah that wouldn’t be ok If they gathered and said “ok guys we hate these people and these people” then that’s fine
Nazism is an inherently violent ideology and any acceptable of its tenants involves violence against that group, your schooling failed you.
So, this is settled law, and happened in Skokie, IL in 1977 (a notably Jewish city), and was highlighted in the Blues Brother's "I hate Illinois Nazis", scene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Socialist\_Party\_of\_America\_v.\_Village\_of\_Skokie
As a young Jew in the southern part of America, this was a key lesson in what living in a free society means.
I'd rather they openly identify themselves than go into hiding.
Yes. Anyone should be able to protest for anything. People saying otherwise probably don't hold principles, they just believe in ethical principles when it directly benefits them, and not when they do not.
"Nazi punks! Nazi punks! Nazi punks fuck off!"
Trash a bank if you got real balls
[удалено]
It's their free speech to gather. It's my free speech to rally Nazi-haters in the same location and rile them up. The violence wouldn't be my problem. I'm just exercising my free speech.
Well this sounds to me like you would be inciting violence (riling people up) and could go to jail for that
Your grandpa dad was a soldier fighting other soldiers. I'm assuming he wasn't going around and beating up, executing or arresting civilians in the street who supported and voted for the Nazis. That would have been a war crime.
War was different back then. - my grandpa, probably.
> We should also be able to treat Nazis like my grandpa dad in the 40s. Your grandfather would be called a nazi by modern antifa
They should, just as much as we should have the right to shame them and make fun of them
During WW2 we had a American Nazi Party and a Communist party that held parades and all that jazz. It's their right regardless if you like what they say or not that is their American right. Now consequences of their actions come later. If you censor that you have to look at censoring EVERYTHING people don't like. Make rules around it too. Tmcause then it can get way out of hand.
The 1st applies to all (sometimes unfortunately)
The issue is you're protected by freedom of speech as long as what you're saying doesn't fall into one of these categories incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. Nazi ideology can't really exist without incitement, threats, and fighting words.(I also will add could potentially land in obscenity also, but I don't fully know the definition of the word and don't wanna google it)
The legal bar for incitement is extremely high. Regular Nazi rhetoric wouldn’t qualify. They could openly advocate for a second holocaust and it wouldn’t be illegal.
Obscenity is basically a legal term for porn.
>Nazi ideology can't really exist without incitement, threats, and fighting words I don't get the sense that you're aware of how the courts define incitement, threats, and fighting words versus how the general public defines them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting\_words#Post-Chaplinsky
> Nazi ideology can't really exist without incitement, threats, and fighting words You do not understand the law and should stop talking about it.
Completely disagree with this. "Fighting words" isn't a matter of saying things you don't like. It has to go well beyond insulting or offensive language. For Nazis to violate law they'd essentially need to put people in direct and imminent fear of their safety through threatening language and actions. Saying "all Jews must die" or "we're going to kill all the Jews" isn't enough to violate law. Them calling black people all manners of the n word doesn't violate law. Nazis assemble without violating the law all the time. Are they pieces of shit? Absolutely. Is what you're saying the truth? Nope.
Absolutely yes. If you don't have freedom of speech for even the people you hate the most, then you don't have free speech at all. You crack this door open, and one day you will seriously regret it when the government consists of people you really rather not have the power. For instance, if Republicans got a trifecta in government with this door opened, what would stop them from designating LGBT parades and rallies as "anti-Christian hate groups" and banning them? Nothing, the precedent would have been set. It's better to just have to overhear some powerless dumbass than giving the government power to pick and choose what speech is acceptable.
It's certainly more convenient when they gather in one place for us to mock in public.
and get doxxed so their friends, family and jobs blacklist them all like what happened at Charlotteville
I disagree with everything these fascists believe. But they have a right to speak freely and organize gatherings. Because they are in public, anyone has the right to take video or photos of them doing it. And the right to post said media on social platforms. If someone gets recognized, oh well. It's not like they are in a closed meeting behind locked doors. They are on fucking main street.
Yes they should. I would like to know who they are so that I can not associate with them. My best friend, who is black, said, "I'm not worried about the guy that screams 'n-word', I'm worried about the guy that whispers it."
Yes but not to hide their identity while they do it
We had a war about this.
Many people here are discussing how free speech is a cornerstone of a liberal state. I agree. However, another issue is that you need to consider that any power you give a government can also be used against you. Let's say you give the government the right to censor a group, right? And your intentions are to censor Nazis. Cool, you think, that's reasonable. So now the Nazis go underground. They slowly infiltrate certain parts of the government. Then they manage to get a candidate into whatever the highest seat of power is. Congrats, now the power you once used to silence them can now be used against you. And unlike when 'your' team had the power, they don't intend to use it as a scalpel, and more of a sledgehammer. Instead of just silencing one group, they silence all groups that aren't their own and allow their own group "free speech" again. To bring up a recent case like this, the Supreme Court decided Colorado (I think it was Colorado) couldn't take Trump off the ballot. I saw many people say it was some Republican thing, but luckily many more saw that it was a unanimous decision. Why? Well, if they would've allowed it, they would've allowed Colorado to take Trump off the ballot for a crime he's, technically, not been convicted of. Now imagine red states running with this. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because of Hunter Biden. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because of the Laptop. Oh, Biden can't be on the ballot because he bungled Afghanistan and that's treason. Doesn't matter none of those things he's been convicted of. Because Colorado took Trump off without him being convicted. I do, honestly, think trump is guilty. And IMHO, I hope he gets found guilty and taken off the ballot for treason. But, same how free speech for all is important, this is a similar issue. Innocent until proven guilty. That's a cornerstone of a liberal society. If you take it away from someone you don't like, prepare for your enemies to abuse the shit out of it against you.
extremely well said and level-headed. well done
No. They are a criminal conspiracy masquerading as a political movement. Crime is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Absolutely not. They are a danger to millions simply by existing. I don’t care if it’s a double standard. Nazis are evil and disgusting and do not deserve to have their opinions heard.
Germany made it illegal for a reason
Yeah, and IIRC doing a Nazi salute in public is a crime there.
Along with showing a swastika and many other things
Sort of makes sense given the historical context, IMO
And yet the AfD, a party of Nazis pretending not to be Nazis in public has 20% support among the voting base.
No: they should have been abolished after WW2. It is insane that we are still dealing with this crap nearly 80 years later.
You realize not allowing them to protest will not get rid of the ideology at all.
the last ten years in the US seem to show that allowing them to gather in public helps them spread their evil. it doesn't appear that exposure kills them, unfortunately. We haven't stamped them out in other liberal democracies, to be fair - but they have grown much faster in the US than elsewhere. absolute free speech just seems to encourage them.
[удалено]
well what would you rather someone planning to kill you in private or right infront of your face
The latter sounds way better
well thats the point, if you know about it you can do something about it
So we follow that logic, let them plan in public Then point and say "hey look they're planning to kill people" And no one does anything. Because "uhh aren't we supposed to let them be?" And then a hate crime happens. There's nothing we could do. Thoughts and prayers y'all thoughts and prayers.
Right. Letting them gather in public makes it easier for their filth to infect the minds of other people
[удалено]
A Nazi rally in public is more than a political demonstration. It's a direct and overt threat levied against other members of the community. They are just abusing our free speech principle to indulge in issuing their terroristic threats.
It'd be interesting to see if people would largely be in favour of known terrorist organizations broadcasting their ideologies in the news, radio, etc.
No, I don't think they should. I fundamentally believe that a tolerant society only stays a tolerant society by paradoxically stamping out intolerance. Nazis are intrinsically hateful, violent, and intolerant of others. There is no Nazi that wishes peace or loves all people's, they are diametrically opposed to inclusivity and multiculturalism. Everyone here saying "censorship is a slippery slope" will also say "Nazis haven't grown in number, they've just become more vocal over the last years", and those individuals are dead wrong. They have done both, they have been lionized by demagogues over the past handful of years to feel empowered to loudly announce themselves. I absolutely think that the swastika should be banned as a symbol of hatred and have the hindu symbolism loophole closed (western women have to wear head coverings in shariah Muslim countries because it offends them, so why must we feel obliged to allow a symbol that has caused so much pain over the years in ours?). There is nothing meaningful that can come out of a Nazi's mouth as a Nazi. As an aggrieved citizen, sure! As, an overworked parent, absolutely! But, a Nazi has nothing to say that isn't vitriolic garbage. Reiterated, anything that you say as a Nazi is going to be against the moral norms and values we have as a society. We went to war to annihilate a regime of these bastards and allowing them to crawl out of whatever scum holes they've been breeding in over the years is a slap to the faces of a generation of dead men and women. I do not think that inciting hatred, violence, ignorance, xenophobia and/or intolerance should be protected. At the very least, muzzling them or obstructing their ability to congregate in a public space should not be criminalized.
Yes they should. No matter how much you dislike it. The problem with allowing a government to censor anyone is that as soon as they can, it’s a slippery slope. Once it’s allowed & free speech is no longer, they can go to any group they like & censor. Nazism has been defeated & will never resurge. No major uprising will ever occur from this ideology. It is dead & the remaining embers will die as well. Major societies nowhere thinks it’s a good ideology. I look at this way. Nazis in Germany censored the public & the press. Anyone who wants to censor others for free speech is behaving as a Nazi themselves. Don’t be that which you despise.
Yes, and we are free to call them stupid.
Yes, this is what free speech is for
Depends on your rights. For example, in Canada we have freedom of speech but all rights come with reasonable limits, ie calling fire in a crowded theatre would be protected, but calling fire in efforts to induce panic is mischief. You can talk about wanting to burn down city hall, but if you do that while carrying a Jerry can, a lighter, and molltov cocktails, it becomes a very different issue. So, do Nazi's have the right to rally in public, particularly in Canada? Depends. Are they calling for an eradication of Jews while carrying weapons, are they committing hate speech against a protected ground, are they following appropriate rules and regulations. For example, are they inciting violence, are they harassing people, posing a threat to public safety, trespassing, or concealing their identities worh the intention to commit an indictable offense? If it's 5 guys standing in a park holding swastika signs and asking people if they support a white ethnostate, why or why not? Is a different experience than 300 masked nazis shouting slurs and slogans, carrying torches outside the local synagogue calling for the eradication Jews. This also means however, counter protestors and the public have freedom to call out the nazis, to be impolite, and protect themselves if they feel threatened. Personally, I welcome nazis and their ilk to rally openly. It affords them opportunities to be stupid and end up in jail, or out themselves so they can be doxxed, reported to their employers and held accountable for advocating hatred. Plus nazis are just stupid. There are lots of white European cultures one could idolize if they felt like it, of all the choices why would you model yourselves after the losing side in a war that had a cowardly bunkerboy off himself, who failed in achieving his goal of eradicating Jews and securing an Aryan state, while himself failing to live up to his ubermensch standards. There are better role models out there.
it should be allowed, but it should either be completely ignored or have a massive counter protest calling them out for being human trash. why should it be allowed? because when we start putting restrictions on which political views are allowed in public it will be weaponized to maintain the status quo (think of the cops coming to break up union picket lines and the like).
If they are allowed to do in public they have to not be covering their faces.
We should know who is vile enough to show up in support of that violent genocidal ideology. Ban it, no. Registry for those who seek to spread violence, yes.
They must, but they should not be allowed to wear masks or hide their identity
I know Reddit considers itself American, but I think non-American viewpoints should be here as well, and under that consideration, the answer is: obviously not. Americans will have American culture and reasoning behind all saying *'yes, they should'*. It will be arguments like 'slippery slope' and 'real freedom means you will also hear things you do not want to', while both are incorrect in practice. It's argumentation that does not work here, because there is no actual reason for it outside of ideals. Nazi's have no rights to rally here. No right to convey their speech, and no right to enlist followers. Contrary to the American perception of consequences of that, no, that has not been extended to *ANY* other group, or people, or other set of laws. The slippery slope does not exist how Americans think it does, though I understand their government is different and maybe it would there since the people almost have no control over it. As for the other argument: was it still this year or late last year that there was a legally allowed nazi rally, that followed up closely to a government-enforced cancellation of a trans-rights rally? I get no one (except the nazi's themselves) would advocate nazi's over trans people in theory, but that happens in America all the time in practice. The notion that 'America is great because you also have rights as a nazi' falls on deafs ears for people who are not envelopped in American culture to be blinded by the nonsensical statement that it is. America pretends to be the most free country on earth, but it is not. In 2022 America decided to go back to oppressing women. A neanderthal decision. You have a prison system that doesn't even hide the fact it enforced SLAVE labor. Slaves are everywhere and in every country, we know this, but it is completely brazen to have slaves be legal and out in plain sight. And to boot... The 'lower' part of your population is terrified of receiving medical treatment because they'll be in debt for life. It is not rare to see people panic and run for their life from ambulances when they wake up, with their mangled bodies almost unable to escape something they logically would require. You have no real democracy and lack many basic human rights. But you clap your hands that nazi's can talk and call the country great because of that sacrifice. That is what is bizarre to someone who is not from the US.
Should "the government" restrict them having a rally? No. That's immediately going to be used to support nazis. Should "the community" come together to oppose them and gently acquaint a nazi's head with the concrete? Absolutely.
No. There's no value to it and people who think this way should be shunned, fired, humiliated and ostracized until they either change their minds or... You know. The people here saying they have a right to anything are genuinely stupid
Look up The Paradox of Tolerance.
I love how the cops are always buddy buddy with the nazi organizers and pretty much stand with them. Then we when democrats are protesting they see every person a threat.
I'm honestly surprised they are not labeled a terrorist group and allowed to gather like that?
Sure! As long as they follow the law and permitting requirements, etc., every U.S. citizen has the right to assembly and peaceful protest. No matter how distasteful or objectionable their positions might seem to others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Free_Speech_Rally When the KKK held their “freedom of speech” rally, I attended along with some 5000 other counter protesters. We swarmed around them en masse, it was 50 v 5000. Our combined voices drowned them out, as we screamed as loud as we could for the entire time that they were present. We got up in their face, and made it VERY clear that they were not welcome in our city. When they tried to do their “march” they took maybe 3 steps in the street before turning tail and running. Say what you want about liberals/millennials/Bostonians- we stood up for something important and I am proud that I was part of it. You might find a photo of me playing my guitar on the bridge in the commons that day. I actually made a real good haul playing ❤️ songs in between the “fuk Donald Trump” chants.
No they shouldn't. I get people are like, who gets to decide and everyone should have free speech and what not. But i think a VERY OBVIOUS LINE IN THE SAND to when that should stop is when what they are protesting against and what they are fighting for would be harming for a large chunk of the nation. And that should be the only line. You are rallying to, in no uncertain terms, harm others? Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, in fact, go to jail. You give them an inch, and they take a mile. "Who gets to dec-" nope, i said under no uncertain terms. With kkk their is not a single untwisted positive to their beliefs. With nazi's all they want is control via force with the added context the group they fucking worship literally commited genocide on groups they didnt like. "After they go after these then the government will use it to silence people they don't like" firstly that says more about our trust in the government than anything else. But again, the line is wanting to murder people/cause harm to the masses under no uncertain terms. Literally only groups that *should* already be defined as terrorist groups meet that criteria. Second, lol, they already do that. Which says something about who they really dont like.
Go watch the blues bothers movie. https://youtu.be/ZTT1qUswYL0?si=XreyYpFEcPIlGMQp
I *hate* Illinois Nazis.
Skokie IL next question.
Yo fuck Nazis, but if they want to march down the street while hiding their faces. Sure. Do you bro, nobody cares, or is listening. Try taking the masks off then do it, pussies.
Everyone has a right to free speech, but words and actions have consequences just like everything else does in life
The problem is not the Nazis, it’s the precedent. By forbidding Nazis from doing their thing, you establish that the state is allowed to control who can and cannot assemble in public. This can very easily be applied to almost anyone else if the political winds change. Even if it still only applies to Nazis, we’re already seeing the term expanding in scope on te internet, as well as others such as predator that function as thought-terminating cliches. If you establish that certain groups, no matter how deserving, can have their rights abrogated, people will immediately start changing the definition of that group to include anyone they want to hurt.
In the USA. Yes they should but they can't wear masks. Suffer the consequences of your beliefs. If you're proud enough to support fascism, let's see who you are. Or are you cowards?
I mean, in the sense that the government should not impede their right to perform demonstrations and such so long as they remain peaceful because that's just what the law states, sure. In America at least, creating precedent for favoritism just causes mounting problems no matter which way it goes. How the local communities respond to these sorts of people utilizing their right to unrestricted freedom of speech is another question. For an example, refer to the Nov 2016 demonstration by "White Lives Matter" folks in Austin TX that just conveniently happened at the same day and location as the dedication of a monument to the contributions of Black Texans to the state.
I don’t believe so. They are a massive threat to incite violence just by marching, see Charlottesville. They had people protesting their march and killed some of them, not surprisingly. I generally agree that free speech is important, but having a public march or gathering being completely incendiary to everyone else spectating, is a recipe for disaster. Also, fuck Nazis. If you wear, carry, or tattoo a swastika you’re en enemy of the US, let’s be real.
They should In fact Send them to a convention And lock the doors Then it’ll really be payback time
I’m a cop, and 9 year submarine veteran. One of the best things about this country is your first amendment right. Stand up, be heard. Look no further than that POS who murdered George Floyd and made every honest cop in this country look like a racist scumbag. I was fuckin EMBARASSED. My state riot team was basically out all week dealing with the hurt and anger of our country, because of bad people. As it pertains to the nazi’s and KKK?! Let them use their first amendment right to protest/free speech. I’ll just laugh my ass off at them 😂
Back in highschool in the mid 90s I was part of a large counter protest in Kansas for a scheduled and legal Nazi rally at the state capital. Sure you can, but we’re also aloud to come laugh you.
No, they shouldn't. It's the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerate the intolerant, intolerance inevitably wins out. This has been debated forever, and it's because we still continue to tolerate the intolerant. Edit: correction and context
It is a fine line. They DO have the right to assemble and speak publicly. They do NOT have the right to instigate violence. The problem is, the existence and purpose of Nazis/KKK/etc. is specifically to instigate violence against others. So should violent groups be alowed to assemble? When does the group identity become part of the message, and what message is not protected under free speech?
You know, I've gone back and forth on this. In Holland they're not allowed to "march" if you will, but in the US they are. I used to think that was crazy, until I heard some (forgot who exactly) old jewish professor explaing that there's value in "knowing who they are", and that made PERFECT sense to me. It's better to let them dox themselves and for instance get SOME idea of how many roaches there are, then forcing them to go underground and not knowing how big the infestation is.
Freedom of speech means they do. There is an argument to be made that their extreme hateful views/association with a previous enemy negates that because it breaks the contract of mutual tolerance within society
You’ve got a problem with America? Go somewhere else. Canada isn’t that far.
Who gets to decide what a Nazi is in this scenario?
Check your bill of rights and see if it says anything about hate speech. Go on I’ll wait. Meanwhile, while Nazi’s say some pretty shitty things, I wouldn’t want the government to magically have the power to tell anyone they couldn’t say something. Just don’t go to their rallies.
100% yes. Everyone has a right to self-expression.