Protecting the Swastika: Freedom of Speech

UPDATE:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154084806047015&id=136625737014&__tn__=*s

Someone assaulted the guy. For using his right. Sad. They just provided him an excuse for more radical behavior. I am concerned for the safety of people who are on campus now. This is exactly the kind of thing that an already off the rails personality disorder individual...would use to justify a shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kobie said:

If he walks into my place of business wearing a swastika, I sure as hell ain't giving him a job.

If he walks into my rental property looking to rent an apartment, I sure as hell ain't making him a tenant.

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about and you know it

blackjack50 said:

So I heard about this from a friend who works at the University of Florida. Apparently there is some dude walking around just off campus wearing a Swastika. Well the local police have been alerted, but my friend sent me the local police Facebook page. And it is CRAZY.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154081440527015&id=136625737014&__tn__=*s

There is the link. Feel free to review some of the ridiculousness going on there. No Facebook is required to look at it. But anyway. You have people legitimately calling for this person's arrest for wearing the swastika. Then they are calling GPD evil for not supporting their view. Bear in mind, this is the department that is run by a black man, and also featured the basketball cop incident (where the guy came out to a call about kids playing basketball in the road and brought Shaquille O'Neal back with him the next day to play). And they exist in a very liberal college town. If they were racist as a department...it would be national news.

So. Tell me. Do you think this is sad? Pathetic? Or do you think this person should be arrested for wearing a swastika? Do you think "hate speech" is just as protected as regular speech?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This is, after all, the age of Trump. Xenophobia, pro-torture and anti-abortion, we've come a long way baby.

Thoreau72 said:

This is, after all, the age of Trump. Xenophobia, pro-torture and anti-abortion, we've come a long way baby.

Click to expand...

So we should just violate the first amendment right? That's what should happen? I'm confused by your post? It doesn't really touch on the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not believe in an unfettered moral right to free speech. Words are weapons, words can hurt, and we are morally responsible for the words we use.

However, I do not believe any State has the moral authority, nor any legitimate State the legal authority, to impose criminal penalties upon speech, nor to withdraw its full protection from any person who is entitled to it on the basis of their speech.

People should be free to wear swastikas and advocate for racial violence-- institutional and otherwise-- without fear of criminal sanction, and people should be free to advocate for laws against same without fear of the law, but people who choose to do either should be subject to harsh and immediate corrective action from private citizens. The police should arrest people who punch Nazis, the courts should prosecute people who punch Nazis, and in a just society, juries would acquit people who punch Nazis. Unfortunately, we do not live in a just society. We live in a society where people believe Nazis should not be punched, but police killing blacks for being "disrespectful" is justified. We live in a society in which "liberals" respond to the election of a man supported by Nazis by giving the government, being taken over by Nazis, the legal authority to determine which political opinions the "freedom of speech" applies to.

blackjack50 said:

So we should just violate the first amendment right? That's what should happen? I'm confused by your post? It doesn't really touch on the topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, I was merely commenting on the crazy times we live in. My daughter lives in Gainesville and also told me the story about this.

As far as I'm concerned, the guy has every right to have a swastika on his clothing. First Amendment, whatever you want to call it, he has that right.

That part of society that doesn't like the symbol chose to punish him for his choice. My point is "that part of society", representing intolerance of any way but their way, not matter the subject, is ascending in this country in large part because of the antics of the new POTUS. When POTUS advances the cause of intolerance and hatred, part of society will respond with gusto.

blackjack50 said:

So I heard about this from a friend who works at the University of Florida. Apparently there is some dude walking around just off campus wearing a Swastika. Well the local police have been alerted, but my friend sent me the local police Facebook page. And it is CRAZY.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154081440527015&id=136625737014&__tn__=*s

There is the link. Feel free to review some of the ridiculousness going on there. No Facebook is required to look at it. But anyway. You have people legitimately calling for this person's arrest for wearing the swastika. Then they are calling GPD evil for not supporting their view. Bear in mind, this is the department that is run by a black man, and also featured the basketball cop incident (where the guy came out to a call about kids playing basketball in the road and brought Shaquille O'Neal back with him the next day to play). And they exist in a very liberal college town. If they were racist as a department...it would be national news.

So. Tell me. Do you think this is sad? Pathetic? Or do you think this person should be arrested for wearing a swastika? Do you think "hate speech" is just as protected as regular speech?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I have a friend who says, and has been saying for at least 60 years, "I can't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

:inandout:

Crovax said:

I think protected hate speech is the cornerstone of what makes free speech free

Click to expand...

I guess so. But I would not support a person wearing a swastika.

it only took 3 comments before some twit blamed trump.

blackjack50 said:

Do you think "hate speech" is just as protected as regular speech?

Click to expand...

Rights can be divided into two different categories along the intervention axis.
A positive right is something that someone has to provide you with. The right to health care for example.
A negative right is something that someone is prevented from doing to you. The right to free speech for example.

The difference between the two is that negative rights encompass what your governing instance can't be trusted with (i.e. security measure against tyranny), whilst by implication it has to be trusted with positive rights.
Going by this reasoning, the governing instance should not be able to prosecute for the issue discussed in this thread, if one cares at all about civil rights. Letting government limit what constitutes an acceptable modes of the exchange of ideas and information in general resides within the sphere of subjects it can't be trusted with, and would thefore be a logical fallacy.

The guy might be mentally unstable, he might be trying to raise awareness, or maybe he's just an obnoxious prick. We don't know.
However as regards him being assaulted, we *can* be certain that people who are unable to grasp simple principles like these don't belong at an institution for higher learning.

Korimyr the Rat said:

I do not believe in an unfettered moral right to free speech. Words are weapons, words can hurt, and we are morally responsible for the words we use.

However, I do not believe any State has the moral authority, nor any legitimate State the legal authority, to impose criminal penalties upon speech, nor to withdraw its full protection from any person who is entitled to it on the basis of their speech.

People should be free to wear swastikas and advocate for racial violence-- institutional and otherwise-- without fear of criminal sanction, and people should be free to advocate for laws against same without fear of the law, but people who choose to do either should be subject to harsh and immediate corrective action from private citizens. The police should arrest people who punch Nazis, the courts should prosecute people who punch Nazis, and in a just society, juries would acquit people who punch Nazis. Unfortunately, we do not live in a just society. We live in a society where people believe Nazis should not be punched, but police killing blacks for being "disrespectful" is justified. We live in a society in which "liberals" respond to the election of a man supported by Nazis by giving the government, being taken over by Nazis, the legal authority to determine which political opinions the "freedom of speech" applies to.

Click to expand...

What a load of crap.

code1211 said:

I have a friend who says, and has been saying for at least 60 years, "I can't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Click to expand...

I thought Voltaire died a long time ago...

People should be allowed to have a Swastika if they like. Freedom of Speech. 100%. Makes them assholes unless they are Buddhist but so what?

if someone desires to exercise their freedom of speech & there love of a symbol such as a swastika, I have no issue with that; this is America & he is only exercising his freedom of speech

when I see the idiot at least I will know he is an bigot ........

Bodhisattva said:

I thought Voltaire died a long time ago...

Click to expand...

I believe you're right.

My first recollection of my friend having said this was in about the second grade.

It's possible that his father read a translation and he was repeating it. He seems to have picked up quite a lot from his father.

Sadly, like Voltaire, His father has passed.

HK.227 said:

Rights can be divided into two different categories along the intervention axis.
A positive right is something that someone has to provide you with. The right to health care for example.
A negative right is something that someone is prevented from doing to you. The right to free speech for example.

The difference between the two is that negative rights encompass what your governing instance can't be trusted with (i.e. security measure against tyranny), whilst by implication it has to be trusted with positive rights.
Going by this reasoning, the governing instance should not be able to prosecute for the issue discussed in this thread, if one cares at all about civil rights. Letting government limit what constitutes an acceptable modes of the exchange of ideas and information in general resides within the sphere of subjects it can't be trusted with, and would thefore be a logical fallacy.

The guy might be mentally unstable, he might be trying to raise awareness, or maybe he's just an obnoxious prick. We don't know.
However as regards him being assaulted, we *can* be certain that people who are unable to grasp simple principles like these don't belong at an institution for higher learning.

Click to expand...

Yours is an unconventional description of rights, suggesting you don't really understand rights. Not a word about powers.

The right to speak is a negative right? Egads, such tortured logic. :roll:

Thoreau72 said:

Yours is an unconventional description of rights, suggesting you don't really understand rights. Not a word about powers.

The right to speak is a negative right? Egads, such tortured logic. :roll:

Click to expand...

Negative and positive rights are well established, and hardly something I invented. I'm actually quite surprised that someone who professes to be a Libertarian is unfamiliar with the concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

HK.227 said:

Negative and positive rights are well established, and hardly something I invented. I'm actually quite surprised that someone who professes to be a Libertarian is unfamiliar with the concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

Click to expand...

Actually I was just informed of the notion here at DP, maybe 2 months ago. A helpful poster even included a grade school video explaining the idea. It is specious to me, and you corroborated that by referring to speech as a negative right. :lol: Whatever blows one's skirt I reckon....