• 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.
Calling for the death of all X is a long way past philosophical. Now, discussing the concept of why all X should be killed might fall under what you term a philosophical statement.
If you say so, Calamity. I think you are beginning to get it.
 
We know you would. It's your own strange misinterpretation of that law. Anything that feeds your hate will do, apparently.

A delusional and stupid nonsense statement, as usual.

It's the law. Someone engaged in an aggressive act against you like that has no legal protection against the defensive use of force. Stay on topic, if you can. If you do so, you only help yourself, in that you can be stupidly wrong on only one thing at a time.
 
A delusional and stupid nonsense statement, as usual.

It's the law. Someone engaged in an aggressive act against you like that has no legal protection against the defensive use of force. Stay on topic, if you can. If you do so, you only help yourself, in that you can be stupidly wrong on only one thing at a time.

Shooting someone who is stealing your car stereo, when you are not actually in the car, is not justifiable homicide, Jay.

Not even in Texas.
 
If you say so, Calamity. I think you are beginning to get it.

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.
 
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.

Could we please stop with the Nazi drama? I don't believe you would recognize a Nazi if they talked to you for hours and hours.
 
Actually a willing audience in the majority did....

Racism in general and Jew hate in particular runs deep in the blood in Germany.

Oh--- as long as we are not being prejudiced or racist here...
 
IMO, such speech should not be legal in the US. Period.

Freedoms in any nation are not boundless. There are limits, and we must be careful of them.

One should not transgress those limits, as the law has abundantly explained here: What Does Free Speech Mean? Excerpt:
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:
*Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
*Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
*To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
*To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
*To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
*To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:
*To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
*To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
*To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 1968.
*To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 1988.
*Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
*Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

One would have thought that the above was taught in a Civics Class - freedom is a two-sided coin. There are actions one can do, and actions one must not do.

Freedom is NOT THE RIGHT to do whatever one thinks they want to do whenever they want to do it. It has limits.

In most instances, here is a good rule: Your freedoms end where mine begin, and vice-versa. We are all equal members of the same nation ...
 
Actually a willing audience in the majority did....

Racism in general and Jew hate in particular runs deep in the blood in Germany.

Today's equivalent of "runs in the blood" is "there is a genetic basis for". I strongly doubt that any geneticist would back up your claim. Why not settle that 'Jew hate runs deep in Germany's Christian culture'. For this there is ample evidence.

(Personal note: At the time the holocaust was happening I was taught by Catholic nuns in England that 'the Jews killed Christ'. Somehow they did not properly explain that that this fulfilled the wish of 'God the father' who had sent his 'son' to the world to 'redeem the sins' of God's creatures by being tortured to death. And that if the 'Jews' had not 'killed Christ' the bizarre and repulsive plan would have ended in fiasco. )
 
Freedoms in any nation are not boundless. There are limits, and we must be careful of them.

One should not transgress those limits, as the law has abundantly explained here: What Does Free Speech Mean? Excerpt:


One would have thought that the above was taught in a Civics Class - freedom is a two-sided coin. There are actions one can do, and actions one must not do.

Freedom is NOT THE RIGHT to do whatever one thinks they want to do whenever they want to do it. It has limits.

In most instances, here is a good rule: Your freedoms end where mine begin, and vice-versa. We are all equal members of the same nation ...
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.
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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 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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

So....we should be banning all those Christians, muslims, Hebrews, etc......have you even read what's in those so called "holy" books?

I mean, really....it makes Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries look like bush league bullies......AND, they have had a few thousands years to perfect their 'You just took it out of context" PR spin and repackage it for modern marketing.
 
So....we should be banning all those Christians, muslims, Hebrews, etc......have you even read what's in those so called "holy" books?

I mean, really....it makes Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries look like bush league bullies......AND, they have had a few thousands years to perfect their 'You just took it out of context" PR spin and repackage it for modern marketing.

If a movement to ban religion took root, I'd be first guy to sign that petition. :)
 
If a movement to ban religion took root, I'd be first guy to sign that petition. :)

Not speaking about religion per se.......just specific ones....you know, the "slay the unbelievers where you find them" kinda thing....rest on the Sabbath or be put to death .

personally.....I have no issues with many religious beliefs, simply because it does not impact my life.

Now, if you want to ban free speech, theres the place to start...those good 'ol Abrahamic religions....or, is it just specific beliefs you want to ban?

Cant really bother those pagans...the whole 'An it harm none, do as you will" kinda sets a nice tone, don't ya think?

Ever considered writing a manifesto listing everyone to ban??
 
Not speaking about religion per se.......just specific ones....you know, the "slay the unbelievers where you find them" kinda thing....rest on the Sabbath or be put to death .

personally.....I have no issues with many religious beliefs, simply because it does not impact my life.

Now, if you want to ban free speech, theres the place to start...those good 'ol Abrahamic religions....or, is it just specific beliefs you want to ban?

Cant really bother those pagans...the whole 'An it harm none, do as you will" kinda sets a nice tone, don't ya think?

Ever considered writing a manifesto listing everyone to ban??

Banning any religion or organization preaching Kill infidels, slay non-believers, Jews, gays, or any group would be a great start.
 
Racism in general and Jew hate in particular runs deep in the blood in Germany.

That sounds to me like an anti-German hate speech.

If somebody said that hate against the Goyim "runs deep in the blood in Israel"..... oy vey, there would be no end of wining and stupid name calling...

:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom