Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 290

Thread: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

  1. #111
    Guru


    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    4,314

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    In the news lately is: where does the freedom of speech for foreign nationals and their paid American citizen end? Can a foreign agent hire Americans to spread propaganda and fake news?

    For reference see Sputnik and Seth Rich.
    Were they to do so, they would likely channel the propaganda through Facebook - thus reaching the most people in the shortest time.

    It would be nice to know how Zuckerberg will handle that one ...

    What is "fake news"? It is news-reporting the factual evidence of which is not corroborated by multiple other journalists. If you read that sort of nonsense and believe it, who's at fault?

    You or the so-called "journalist"?

    My point: "Fake news" does not exist as "news". News is the relating of events that are verified to have actually happened. In fact, it's meaning is in debate. A definition from Merriam-Webster (which has not yet included the word in its dictionary apparently):
    Fake news is frequently used to describe a political story which is seen as damaging to an agency, entity, or person. However, ... it is by no means restricted to politics, and seems to have currency in terms of general news.
    Again, the essence of "news" is that (whatever is related) it can be corroborated by multiple reports. Definition of the word:
    News is information about current events. Journalists provide news through many different media, based on word of mouth, printing, postal systems, broadcasting, electronic communication, and also on their own testimony, as witnesses of relevant events.
    Moreover, were the news regarding an individual or an entity in fact be "not news", then a court of law could be asked to qualify it as "fake news" and thus harmful. The court could then apply a sanction to its author(s). Seen any of that lately? I havent.

    Once upon a time, we had another word for it. Some called it "(I]BS[/I]" - ie. nonsense, or outright lies bantered about by the public without corroboration ...
    Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them; then neither persons nor property will be safe. (Frederick Douglass)

  2. #112
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    The third guy did not actually do anything, but he got 12 years nonetheless for failure to notify authorities of the plot, IIRC. In fact, he turned state's witness and is currently invisible.
    Poor example. None of them were prosecutable on the basis of their speech. Rather, they were culpable because of their conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  3. #113
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    new zealand.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,728

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Nazi doctrine calls for the extermination of Jews and other people deemed "lesser" by White Supremacists. IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.
    Your problem here is that you are being simplistic. This kind of nonsense statement is so simple to deny that it is not worth bothering with or trying to ban. Simply laugh at it and move on.

    What you should have done is link to any of goebbels speeches of hate against the jews and miorities to get an idea of just how he attempts through lies to manipulate peoples thinking. An example.

    Goebbels on the Jews (1941)
    If we Germans have a fateful flaw in our national character, it is forgetfulness. This failing speaks well of our human decency and generosity, but not always for our political wisdom or intelligence. We think everyone else as is good natured as we are. The French threatened to dismember the Reich during the winter of 1939/40, saying that we and our families would have to stand in lines before their field kitchens to get something warm to eat. Our army defeated France in six weeks, after which we saw German soldiers giving bread and sausages to hungry French women and children, and gasoline to refugees from Paris to enable them to return home as soon as possible, there to spread at least some of their hatred against the Reich.
    It is these kind of hate speeches that need to be banned because they completely rely on giving a false image . They do not ask the listener to outright hate. They ask the listener to be superior to those that it condemns as unworthy.

  4. #114
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    It's not quite that simple.
    It is simple. Brandenburg v. Ohio is a decision announcing the proposition that mere words, mere advocacy, to harm or kill another person/people, is not criminal but is protected speech and more is necessary to criminalize such speech and render such speech as not protected by the 1st Amendment.

    The important language from the decision, AKA the "incitement test" is:

    advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

    Absent a showing by the government, and the speech having an absence of any of the following three of "A. directed to inciting or producing B. imminent lawless action and C. is likely to incite or produce such action" then speech advocating the extermination of Jews and other people is constitutionally protected and 1st Amendment recognized free speech.
    Last edited by NotreDame; 09-13-17 at 01:45 PM.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  5. #115
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    There is a difference between standing on a corner and saying, "Jews deserve death!" And, standing in front of a small army of faithful fanatics and saying, "Kill the Jews!"

    It's not even a subtle difference.
    To be sure, the two are different, but this is the extent of what you have demonstrated. The facts in the latter example do not, without more, render the speech as satisfying the Brandenburg incitement test, which is to say the facts in the latter example do not make any demonstration the speech is not constitutionally protected.

    And philosophically, I am not convinced the speech under the circumstances of the latter example should be illegal. The circumstances of the latter example illustrate nothing more than the existence of a speech but the circumstances do not establish the uttered words pose a threat to anyone's physical well being and/or another's property.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  6. #116
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    He went for a car ride?
    He is alleged to have done more than merely participate in a "car ride." He did engage in conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy and he was prosecuted for the conduct done in furtherance of the conspiracy.
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  7. #117
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    I like Canada's system. Free speech except hate speech. Hate marches are banned.

    They serve no purpose other than to divide society and promote harm.

    I realize that people who worship the First Amendment will take issue with this, but I have never seen hate speech laws harm the rest of free speech in mature societies that know how to divide the two responsibly.

    The KKK do not deserve to hold marches. They don't deserve a voice. Our ancestors paid dearly and in the millions because of letting these people have open say in the polity. No more. We don't need to repeat history. Nothing needs to be rehashed or relearned. It can only end one way: badly. They just need to shut up and fade into history.

  8. #118
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    I like Canada's system. Free speech except hate speech. Hate marches are banned.

    They serve no purpose other than to divide society and promote harm.

    I realize that people who worship the First Amendment will take issue with this, but I have never seen hate speech laws harm the rest of free speech in mature societies that know how to divide the two responsibly.

    The KKK do not deserve to hold marches. They don't deserve a voice. Our ancestors paid dearly and in the millions because of letting these people have open say in the polity. No more. We don't need to repeat history. Nothing needs to be rehashed or relearned. It can only end one way: badly. They just need to shut up and fade into history.
    So, extinguish liberty to ensure people feel comfortable. Really?

    And it is nothing short of irony to invoke "free speech" while simultaneously asserting so long as it is a certain kind of speech!
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

  9. #119
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by NotreDame View Post
    So, extinguish liberty to ensure people feel comfortable. Really?

    And it is nothing short of irony to invoke "free speech" while simultaneously asserting so long as it is a certain kind of speech!
    It's not extinguishing liberty to quell hate speech, that's an exaggeration. It works quite well in Canada, but that's because as a culture we have decided that hate speech is wrong enough that we will collectively not allow it. Not everyone agrees but most do. All other speech is protected and the government has not used hate speech laws to expand unjustly into silencing other kinds of speech.

    Nobody in this country wants to see Nazis or the KKK march. We have decided as a nation that it's not OK. It's the only exception to free speech on the books and it works quite well. So your judgments are kind of irrelevant, based on available evidence.

  10. #120
    Professor

    NotreDame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    6 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,583

    Re: Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    It's not extinguishing liberty to quell hate speech, that's an exaggeration. It works quite well in Canada, but that's because as a culture we have decided that hate speech is wrong enough that we will collectively not allow it. Not everyone agrees but most do. All other speech is protected and the government has not used hate speech laws to expand unjustly into silencing other kinds of speech.

    Nobody in this country wants to see Nazis or the KKK march. We have decided as a nation that it's not OK. It's the only exception to free speech on the books and it works quite well. So your judgments are kind of irrelevant, based on available evidence.
    It is indeed an act of extinguishing liberty when you deprive people of the freedom to utter hate speech. Previously, they enjoyed the freedom to engage in hate speech but currently a law has deprived them of the freedom.

    It is a mystery as to how you arrived at the conclusion liberty hasn't been deprived of the people when they are told they cannot utter, write, or express a certain message. The very act of telling someone they cannot do something is to deny them the freedom to do it.

    Yes, your society has collectively denied free speech in regards to hate speech. But this is precisely the point, freedom, liberty, including free speech, isn't, shouldn't be left perilously for a society to decide by a vote. The point of rights is to elevate them above a societal majority, not subjugate them to the tyranny of a popular vote.

    And there isn't any "evidence" supporting your position and you clearly couldn't respond with a rational rebuttal as you resorted to, as most people who lack a rational reply, to the often invoked, defensive, but dead end retort of "your judgments are kind of irrelevant."

    Smart reply! I suppose you are remiss in your failure to acknowledge your "own" statement is applicable to you as well. In other words, your "judgments" are "kind of irrelevant."

    Now, are you actually going to articulate a substantive, rational, and lucid defense and or reply?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution and 4th president of the United States.

Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •