• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Free Speech and Nazi Doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesse Booth said:
How are their words actually changing our society and law? Who is being harmed by words?
Click to expand...

Sticks and stones will break my bones,
But words will never harm me.
(Childish diddle attributed to early American myths)
 
calamity said:
Well, some of us believe that people who want to throw a million people into an oven should be shut out of public discourse. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to imagine that people with disgusting authoritarian views like you exist.

People like you are why we need the First Amendment to be upheld as an absolute.
 
JayDubya said:
It's not hard to imagine that people with disgusting authoritarian views like you exist.

People like you are why we need the First Amendment to be upheld as an absolute.
Click to expand...
Tough, JayDubya, that the First Amendment is not absolute, not for speech or petition or religion. You can't sacrifice humans. You can't call for the death of someone else. And so forth. Those sensible American (not authoritarian) views. Try a new argument, please.
 
JamesBY said:
Tough, JayDubya, that the First Amendment is not absolute, not for speech or petition or religion. You can't sacrifice humans. You can't call for the death of someone else. And so forth. Those sensible American (not authoritarian) views. Try a new argument, please.
Click to expand...

And yet you are legally welcome to think and opine that human sacrifice should be legal - it's at least as moral as some of the garbage I've seen spewed by a bizarre group of self-styled religious people in another subforum.

Likewise one is welcome to think and opine that Adolf Hitler was a super great role model for behavior.

Both opinions are deplorable, but I will defend their right to say and believe such. Freedom of thought and expression are paramount.
 
JayDubya said:
And yet you are legally welcome to think and opine that human sacrifice should be legal - it's at least as moral as some of the garbage I've seen spewed by a bizarre group of self-styled religious people in another subforum. Likewise one is welcome to think and opine that Adolf Hitler was a super great role model for behavior. Both opinions are deplorable, but I will defend their right to say and believe such. Freedom of thought and expression are paramount.
Click to expand...
You can argue for the legality for such opinions, yes.
jm
But you cannot call for them to implemented without them alread being legal, yes.

Your logic permits you to call for the death of Trump by quasi-legal violence. Try it and see what happens.

I have no legal shield that protects me in calling for the lynching of Richard Spencer.
 
calamity said:
IMO, preaching racism and genocide goes beyond the intent of the First, which was to provide an open forum by which to criticize the government. It was not meant for idiots to promote ideas to subjugate or even annihilate nearly half the population.
Click to expand...

Let me make it very very clear to you so you understand completely. I don't care about YOUR OPINION. I do care about MY RIGHT so say whatever I damn well want, up to and including espousing the annihilation of certain or all people. So long as you don't interfere with my right to say whatever I want, I wont interfere with your rights to do the same. I don't care what you say, including that you want to kill me and all mine. That is YOUR right and I for one don't begrudge you it. In fact I go so far as to say to you to exercise it often and with abandon. Say whatever comes to mind. I EXPECT the same consideration in return and will TAKE that consideration if that is necessary. Mind you your method of interfering with my rights might LOOK more legal and civilized, my method will be decidedly less civilized and far more barbaric and LOOK even more so. There are certain things I do not tolerate at all from ANYONE or any ENTITY, speech is one of those things. I WILL say whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want, and will tolerate interference in doing so from NO ONE. I trust I made the matter quite clear.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Let me make it very very clear to you so you understand completely. I don't care about YOUR OPINION. I do care about MY RIGHT so say whatever I damn well want, up to and including espousing the annihilation of certain or all people. So long as you don't interfere with my right to say whatever I want, I wont interfere with your rights to do the same. I don't care what you say, including that you want to kill me and all mine. That is YOUR right and I for one don't begrudge you it. In fact I go so far as to say to you to exercise it often and with abandon. Say whatever comes to mind. I EXPECT the same consideration in return and will TAKE that consideration if that is necessary. Mind you your method of interfering with my rights might LOOK more legal and civilized, my method will be decidedly less civilized and far more barbaric and LOOK even more so. There are certain things I do not tolerate at all from ANYONE or any ENTITY, speech is one of those things. I WILL say whatever I want, whenever I want, however I want, and will tolerate interference in doing so from NO ONE. I trust I made the matter quite clear.
Click to expand...

Well, in my opinion, you should not have a right to preach about plans to stick a million people into ovens.
 
JamesBY said:
You can argue for the legality for such opinions, yes.
jm
But you cannot call for them to implemented without them alread being legal, yes.

Your logic permits you to call for the death of Trump by quasi-legal violence. Try it and see what happens.

I have no legal shield that protects me in calling for the lynching of Richard Spencer.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't need a shield in a nation of laws because you would be responsible for your ACTIONS and your actions alone.
 
calamity said:
Well, in my opinion, you should not have a right to preach about plans to stick a million people into ovens.
Click to expand...

But I do have that right and will continue to exercise it freely, if only to annoy you. ;) Speaking of ovens, baked Antifa anyone?
 
PirateMk1 said:
But I do have that right and will continue to exercise it freely, if only to annoy you. ;) Speaking of ovens, baked Antifa anyone?
Click to expand...

That's only a few hundred people, most of whom no one likes anyway. :)
 
PirateMk1 said:
But I do have that right and will continue to exercise it freely, if only to annoy you. ;) Speaking of ovens, baked Antifa anyone?
Click to expand...

You have every right to preach theoretically for such action, but any call for the implementation of such action now is actionable to the law, as it should be.
 
JamesBY said:
You have every right to preach theoretically for such action, but any call for the implementation of such action now is actionable to the law, as it should be.
Click to expand...

As it shouldn't be. The first and second are absolute rights. While you like such laws, I am active seeking to undermine and remove them via all legal methods. I will win.
 
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have to disagree with you there. Speech means nothing as long as it has no sense of officialdom, or power over others; in a school, or other type of capacity, like media etc. The thing to do in my view is simply drown it out and marginalize it and give no play at all. THAT kind of demonstrating for instance should be treated the way the GW Bush administration dealt with protesters on his national visits; they were corralled into "Free Speech Zones" blocks away from where he was going to be.
 
calamity said:
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.
Click to expand...


The rhetoric of any hate group is detestable.

How can you be aware of and detest something if it is never presented to you?

Light is the remedy to darkness. Let the light shine in. There is nothing quite as exposing as having the empty rhetoric of hate exposed by the light of intelligence.

You know... Like subjecting the words of the leftists in our media about Trump to actual rational review.
 
I have no problem with being disagreed with on this issue. Free speech, after all.

My core point:

Free speech rightfully encompasses things like saying the government is corrupt, the president sucks, this or that political view (or religion) is terrible or great, martians are coming or they have already landed, etc.

Questionable speech, IMO, that needs further review (not necessarily illegal but certainly not put on airwaves or given a platform by reputable sources--google bans for example would be A-OK here) is saying things like all blacks are inhuman, all Jews are reptiles, all Muslims are goat ****ers, and all Christians screw little boys in the butt. Note the emphasis on the broadbrush and group hate.

Illegal speech, speech which should be criminal, IMO, would be calling for the deaths of said groups. Kill Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, etc.
 
PirateMk1 said:
As it shouldn't be. The first and second are absolute rights. While you like such laws, I am active seeking to undermine and remove them via all legal methods. I will win.
Click to expand...
Of course it should be actionable. If you took power, you would shut down free speech absolutely. You know it, I know it, and you will continue to lose.
 
calamity said:
Illegal speech, speech which should be criminal, IMO, would be calling for the deaths of said groups. Kill Jews, Blacks, Christians, Muslims, etc.
Click to expand...

In that case, your "kill the unborn, the unborn are less than human" speech should be criminal.
 
JayDubya said:
In that case, your "kill the unborn, the unborn are less than human" speech should be criminal.
Click to expand...

If and only if you ever manage to make them legal persons. You're not very good at law stuff. Are ya, Jay?
 
calamity said:
If and only if you ever manage to make them legal persons. You're not very good at law stuff. Are ya, Jay?
Click to expand...

Oh, okay then, Nazis just need to opine that Jews shouldn't be legal persons, then they don't run afoul of your stupid restrictions on free speech.

:peace

Thanks for clarifying why you fail so I don't have to.
 
JamesBY said:
Of course it should be actionable. If you took power, you would shut down free speech absolutely. You know it, I know it, and you will continue to lose.
Click to expand...

Refer to post 59.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom