Comment on [deleted]
sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’d go for the latter. The main reason being that banning Nazi ideology or speech is probably a violation of the First Amendment. Nazis are bad and their ideology is bad. But the First Amendment has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit government regulation of speech based on its content, except in very narrow circumstance. This usually means direct and specific threats.
Just to get in front of the usual counter examples folks try to use here. Yes, you can yell, “fire” in a crowded theater. In fact, if there is a fire, you really should. There is no prior restraint on yelling, “fire” in a crowded theater. Now, you might be held accountable for causing panic and injuries in the resulting stampede for the exits. But that is not the same as a prior restraint.
Slander is also not a prior restraint. I’m fact, it’s usually not a crime. It’s an actionable tort, a private cause for litigation.
I get it. Banning Nazis would feel really good. But it’s basically a dead issue while the First Amendment holds. There are better places to spend political capital than tilting at a windmill.
noob@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Making it illegal to voice certain opinions only pushes them underground. Ideas and ideology will fester if they only exist in a secluded eco chamber. Allow people the freedom to say anything in public, and let their ideas be tested in the light of open discourse. I’d rather nazis say their shit out loud so that they can be identified, and duly ridiculed. Impressionable people can watch and see how the nazi gets shat on in public.
Most importantly, freedom of speech must be universally applied, without exception, to prevent both the uprising of shitty ideas and the suppression of good ideas.
DjangoFett@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I cannot argue the logic, but something in me still kicks against the idea of tolerating this kind of bullshit in any way in the future. Like, immediate and unmistakable consequences for espousing certain views - like the genocide of [group of people] for example.
Social consequences aren’t enough because, as we have seen, any amount of tolerance allows Nazis to sway the hurt and impressionable to their side. The weak who wish to project strength will always find it easier to side with those who tell them they were the right ones, the superior ones all along and crush all who disagree.
In this regard, tolerating their ideals in any way has led us to where we are today. “Safe spaces for absolute free speech” allowed for it while the actual moderate voices were shouted down by the vitriol of the Nazis. They festered and found power there and were allowed to and encouraged to do so.
There needs to be a visible consequence for fucking around like that. Just like you fuck around in your car and get pulled over for endangering the public and eventually lose your right to drive a vehicle, so it needs to be with Nazism and those ideals. Humans are humans and deserve to live, period. Fuck your hard on for men with guns, feed people first. Fuck your god, help those in front of you right the fuck now or get out of the way of those who will regardless of which god they prefer if any.
My tolerance for tolerance has worn thin.