Skip to comments.Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?
Posted on 01/31/2014 5:53:39 AM PST by PaulCruz2016
New studies show that unbridled hateful speech can cause emotional harm. Is it time for the United States to follow other democracies and impose limits on what Neo-Nazis and other haters say?
Over the past several weeks, free speech has gotten costlierat least in France and Israel.
In France, Dieudonne MBala MBala, an anti-Semitic stand-up comic infamous for popularizing the quenelle, an inverted Nazi salute, was banned from performing in two cities. MBala MBala has been repeatedly fined for hate speech, and this was not the first time his act was perceived as a threat to public order.
Meanwhile, Israels parliament is soon to pass a bill outlawing the word Nazi for non-educational purposes. Indeed, any slur against another that invokes the Third Reich could land the speaker in jail for six months with a fine of $29,000. The Israelis are concerned about both the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and the trivialization of the Holocausteven locally.
To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively undemocratic. The First Amendment would never prohibit the quenelle, regardless of its symbolic meaning. And any lover of Seinfeld would regard banning the Soup Nazi episode as scandalously un-American. After all, in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents. And more recently, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read, God Hates Fags.
While what is happening in France and Israel is wholly foreign to Americans, perhaps its time to consider whether these and other countries may be right. Perhaps Americas fixation on free speech has gone too far.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
IIRC, they paraded in NYC during WWII.
A little too late. The sotu was Tuesday night.
Leftists are so predictable.
Unpleasant speech can be emotionally stressful. Of course. But unpleasant experiences are unfortunately part of life. The way leftist talk cause me distress. Seeing Obama or Pelosi on TV causes me distress. Threats to free speech cause me very great distress. Life itself tends to be stressful to most people.
Americans once faced and conquered a wild and hostile continent. Now they want to be protected from unpleasant words. Heaven help us.
No, “they” shouldn’t outlaw it.
The scary part here is not the speech itself, but who is “they”? What do “they” believe and how far will “they” go after this.
What would “they” consider next to be outlawed. Pretty soon everyone speeks the way “they” want them to.
Should KKK rallies be outlawed?
What about Black Panthers?
Duh. Protects everyone from David Duke to Barry.
The First Ammendment was INTENDED to protect speech that the majority finds offensive. There would be no need for an ammendment to protect only that speech which is generally found to be inoffensive. I certainly don’t agree with what the neo-nazis say, but they do have the right to say it. The remedy is not to stifle their speech, but to oppose it by presenting contrary ideas.
Gee, maybe while we’re at it we should outlaw free speech for commie progressive leftists, too.
I thought the followers of the is-lamish “faith” already had free speech. Or they’ll cut your head off.
Despite the emotional harm that he causes, I support Thane Rosenbaun’s right to freedom of speech. But perhaps he would be happier if he took up Israeli citizenship and moved to that socialist paradise.
Yes. (answer to the headline)
In the US, it is a stupid question. We are the land of “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”
The word you are looking for is ‘amendment’. You might want to work on your spell checker.
Of course, that does bring up the problems with degree. Just how hateful, harmful, and hurtful does something have to be in order to be noticed and action taken against the speaker?
Then there is the determination of exactly what is considered hateful, harmful, and hurtful...
Or the problem of who gets to decide...
Or who/what is protected from such speech. How big of a group or demographic counts? You don't want to discriminate on size do you?
What if it is hateful speech against something that is harmful? Hmmm...
Did Nancy Pelosi write this for them???
I’m offended by gay pride parades. Are they going to ban those too? They don’t want to discriminate do they? Hey, let’s ban anything that offends anyone...
From Il Duce Cuomo.
Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives, who are right to life, pro assault weapon, anti-gay, is that who they are? Because if that is who they are, and if they are the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York. Because that is not who New Yorkers are. Il Duce Cuomo
I don’t think it should be banned. It is hurtful but if they can ban hurtful speech of one, they can ban the speech of another. Who will decide what hateful speech is? I think it is up to us to counter hateful speech not be protected from it.
Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon.
Let them first apply that sentiment to the islamic fanatics, and see how it works out. Then we can discuss other applications.
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .
The Bill of Rights has no ambiguity, and we should not permit the enemies of freedom to pretend that it does.
Probably not, though. Speech is either free, or it is not. And people need to learn to deal with their sensitivities. Libel and slander can inflict not just emotional harm, but financial and social harm. Shouting fire or inciting violence can inflict both of those, plus physical harm. But insults, or "non-sensitivities" shouldn't. There are more reasons than I can list, but the main one is that it is just another little restriction of our liberty. No thanks
And since we know that all Republicans and conservatives are Nazis, let’s legally sanction them if they speak too. We’ll finally be back to having “acceptable” debates in which Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter represent the “right”. At least until they slow down “progress” and then we can call them Nazis and jail them too. After all, we always need an enemy to persecute to keep progress moving forward.
This is a look into the mind of academe. Not too pretty, is it? The argumentation is not only flawed by premise but, also, flawed by illogic.
Your college age kids are in the best of hands.
I am reading a book about a family in the 1700s that headed west and claimed land in the Rocky Mountains to set up a homestead. It was winter in the Rocky Mountains in the 1700s. The men of the family cut down trees in the forrest in the winter to build houses. Four of their children and one wife has already died.
Then I took a break and went to watch TV with my wife. She was watching one of her BravO chick programs where every male person on the show resembles a male version of a woman; soft, tender, frail,.... just pretty little men. They were talking about going to the salon for a wax job... about how their mocha latte didn’t have enough cream.... about how their shoes didn’t match their scarf.
You are right... people used to have REAL reasons to be distressed.
My apologies for the mistake. Doesn’t change my point, though.
If you are not free to say what you think, you are not free.
I doubt the Nazis paraded after Hitler declared war on the US. There was a huge German-American Bund rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939, while the US was still neutral.
There cannot be ‘Free Speech’ for some if there is not ‘Free Speech’ for all.......................
The First Ammendment was to protect speech that the GOVERNMENT finds offensive. .....
This is all about banning insults to Islam. Of course they claim it’s against “Neo Nazis”, like how many of them are there in this country, like 10?
We give up our rights to Free Speech for no one.
“”””Im offended by gay pride parades.”””””
But I have a choice to walk away. I have a choice to start my own parade. A “Heterosexual-GodFearing Parade”.
Once I start it, I don’t want the ‘powers that be’ coming in and telling me to shut it down.
It works both ways. They can’t shut mine down, I can’t shut theirs down.
Should you? Freedom isn’t a selective process of who gets it and who doesn’t, that’s communism.
The best way to know we have monsters among us is to allow them free speech so that they self-identify, and do not push their poison out of sight.
Of all the dumb questions, this is the dumbest.
Who but a National Socialist of some description could even ask that question?
I hope everyone here realizes that there are lunatics on the left who regard the Knights of Columbus as a “hate group” because they forthrightly defend the Latin Church’s understanding of Christian sexual morality, and regard FreeRepublic.com as a “hate site”, I suppose because the preponderance of opinion here also supports traditional Christian sexual morality and has a take on race issues consonant with Dr. King’s Christian humanism (judging people by the content of their character) and opposed to the new-issue version of “anti-racism” that’s based on applying a Nietzschean transvaluation of values to the old template of white racism.
Exactly. But that is exactly what these guys are trying to do. "Oh XYZ is obviously just tooo hateful to allow..." I may not like nor agree with them...heck I may be repulsed by them. But I stand behind their right to march in jackboots and white sheets or designer shoes and boas. ;-)
It is good we have a First amendment, and that people use it, Thane. Why you may ask? Because when the shtf, we will know who to shoot first.
Anyone tempted to agree with banning the Left's definition of "hate speech" hasn't thought it through.
Telling the truth is often "hurtful," especially when it is most necessary and needed.
It's the most slippery slope I can imagine, and one reason this silly idea is very specifically forbidden by the First Amendment.
The right of free speech exists solely for offensive speech. Popular speech doesn’t need protection.
How about the democratic convention?
Democrat Party, because there's nothing democratic about it.
No, it doesn't. But when we are fighting the 'intellectuals', we don't want to give them ammo for their ad hominem attacks.
If a state restricts the rights of one group, it will soon restrict the rights of another group and another, repeat until the state restricts the rights of all groups.