• 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.

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,839
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 
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.

The speech should be allowed. :yes:

Trying to draw a "bright line" on what can and cannot be said simply because it is either "offensive," or perceived as a inciting ("Hate Speech") defeats the whole purpose behind the right to free expression.

IMO, successfully branding what can and cannot be expressed non-violently will only lead to more and more censorship until free speech is no more than a slogan with no actual liberty for anyone at all.
 
Last edited:
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.

How long will this Nazi kick you're on last?
 
The speech should be allowed. :yes:

Trying to draw a "bright line" on what can and cannot be said simply because it is either "offensive," or perceived as a inciting ("Hate Speech") defeats the whole purpose behind the right to free expression.

IMO, successfully branding what can and cannot be expressed non-violently will only lead to more and more censorship until free speech is no more than a slogan with no actual liberty for anyone at all.
:thumbs:
 
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.
They may SAY whatever they like. If they take one step to act on it I want them in prison
 
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.

Nazis are easy to drown out. Somebody bring a PA system and have a dance party while you laugh at them.
 
Why? Is their autistic screeching harming someone?

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.
 
1st Amendment disagrees.... to a point.

Are you sure?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

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.
 
Are you sure?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As long as they do not promote violence against any individual or group...
 
How long will this Nazi kick you're on last?

A while. I'm digging into ratlines right now. I'm sure that all I glean from that exercise will spur a thread within a few days. But, it'll probably have to go in CT.
 
Hitler's did.

Just sayin'

Hitler has been dead for sixty years. The modern Nazis are just a fangless shadow of a movement clinging to a dismal failure of an ideology. When individual members of that group break the law, we'll arrest them as usual. The rest will just keep talking.
 
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.

Citation?
 
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.

And limiting it opens up a dangerous can of worms. Best not to take such unnecessary measures, if you ask me.

Besides, I use my freedom of speech for a hell of a lot more than criticizing the government, and I'd like to keep it that way.
 
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.

An open forum to talk about anything is the requirement that should never be traded for anything.

Nobody controls my mouth but me.

This is a Human Rights Issue.

Mine will not be taken.
 
An open forum to talk about anything is the requirement that should never be traded for anything.

The most dangerous speech is the speech to crush dangerous speech
 
As long as they do not promote violence against any individual or group...

They are promoting violence though.

...white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and white nationalists are all effectively Nazis, regardless of whether or not they choose to go by that name, according to Federico Finchelstein, a professor of history at the New School for Social Research whose work focuses on the relationship between populism and fascism. That’s because all of these groups exhibit the fundamental traits of Nazism—chiefly racism, anti-Semitism, and the glorification of political violence.
https://qz.com/1053370/what-it-means-to-be-an-american-nazi-in-2017/
 
An open forum to talk about anything is the requirement that should never be traded for anything.

Nobody controls my mouth but me.

This is a Human Rights Issue.

Mine will not be taken.

It should be though if you are talking about violently overthrowing our government or murdering people you believe are sub-human. In fact, it's imperative that we squash that sort of thing like the cockroaches they are.
 
It should be though if you are talking about violently overthrowing our government or murdering people you believe are sub-human. In fact, it's imperative that we squash that sort of thing like the cockroaches they are.

We must squash their actions....not their words
 
Its still just words

It's not quite that simple.

For most of American history, the courts held that no one has a right to advocate violations of the law. They ruled that advocacy of crime is wholly outside of the First Amendment--akin to a criminal attempt and punishable as such. Indeed, many of the judges revered as the strongest champions of free speech believed that express advocacy of crime was punishable. Judge Learned Hand, in his great 1917 opinion in Masses v. United States, established himself as a true hero of free speech by saying that even dangerous dissident speech was generally protected against government regulation. But Hand himself conceded that government could regulate any speaker who would "counsel or advise a man" to commit an unlawful act.

...in the Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio. There the Court said the government could not take action against a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who said, among other things, "We're not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengence taken." The speaker did not explicitly advocate illegal acts or illegal violence. But in its decision, the Court announced a broad principle, ruling that the right to free speech does "not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

http://prospect.org/article/violent-speech-right
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom