Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?
The Daily Beast ^ | 01-30-2014 | Thane Rosenbaun

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 costlier—at least in France and Israel.

In France, Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, an anti-Semitic stand-up comic infamous for popularizing the quenelle, an inverted Nazi salute, was banned from performing in two cities. M’Bala M’Bala 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, Israel’s 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 Holocaust—even 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 it’s time to consider whether these and other countries may be right. Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.

(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; firstamendment; freespeech; neonazi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 01/31/2014 5:53:39 AM PST by PaulCruz2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

IIRC, they paraded in NYC during WWII.


2 posted on 01/31/2014 5:54:46 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.

Adios, mofo.

3 posted on 01/31/2014 5:54:48 AM PST by Night Hides Not (For every Ted Cruz we send to DC, I can endure 2-3 "unviable" candidates that beat incumbents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

A little too late. The sotu was Tuesday night.


4 posted on 01/31/2014 5:56:07 AM PST by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
In other words, free speech for me but not thee. I find your opinions bothersome, hater. And I don't want to be bothered with them.

Leftists are so predictable.

5 posted on 01/31/2014 5:59:39 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


6 posted on 01/31/2014 5:59:49 AM PST by all the best (`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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?


7 posted on 01/31/2014 6:01:07 AM PST by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Duh. Protects everyone from David Duke to Barry.


8 posted on 01/31/2014 6:01:25 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


9 posted on 01/31/2014 6:01:30 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Gee, maybe while we’re at it we should outlaw free speech for commie progressive leftists, too.


10 posted on 01/31/2014 6:02:21 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

I thought the followers of the is-lamish “faith” already had free speech. Or they’ll cut your head off.


11 posted on 01/31/2014 6:02:59 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme), the price of EVERYTHING will necessarily skyrocket! Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


12 posted on 01/31/2014 6:03:04 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.”

Own it.


13 posted on 01/31/2014 6:03:28 AM PST by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stremba

“Ammendment”

The word you are looking for is ‘amendment’. You might want to work on your spell checker.


14 posted on 01/31/2014 6:04:30 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
I see. Why yes, it does sound reasonable that hateful, harmful, hurtful speech should be restricted. After all, why allow something that may cause harm to another?

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...


Beginning to see it yet? Down that path lies madness and oppression. While free speech can be (in fact will be) hateful, harmful, and hurtful - it beats the alternatives. People have to put on their big-boy pants and not get their feelers hurt 'cause guess what cupcake, somewhere there is someone hurt by the things you say and do too! You have to realize there are a-holes out there. Always have been, always will be. They are going to do and say things that are hateful etc. just because they can and/or they get their kicks from it. You can't stop it without trampling on everyone. You can't. Stop. I can hear you thinking, but what if we... No. You can not.
15 posted on 01/31/2014 6:04:35 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Did Nancy Pelosi write this for them???


16 posted on 01/31/2014 6:04:44 AM PST by firebasecody (Orthodoxy, proclaiming the Truth since AD 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: envisio

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...


17 posted on 01/31/2014 6:05:43 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: envisio
If you think the Left is getting froggy now wait until Amnesty gives them their permanent majority.
18 posted on 01/31/2014 6:05:47 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
FTA... conclusion paragraph:
“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”.

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

19 posted on 01/31/2014 6:06:53 AM PST by BilLies ("Will none rid me of this lying bastard ?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.
Øbama, is that you? Stopped reading right there.
20 posted on 01/31/2014 6:08:19 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


21 posted on 01/31/2014 6:09:46 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheelbarrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BilLies

“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.


22 posted on 01/31/2014 6:10:29 AM PST by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
I do not want FedGov to be the arbiter of acceptable speech in the United States. Someone tempted to engage in what those who support censorship label as "hate speech" has and should have the same constitutional rights as the most patriotic republican or the most evil national socialist or soviet socialist. I wouldn't even censor the 2014 State of the Union, despite the fact that the speaker was the most evil and most dangerous enemy that America has ever faced.

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.

23 posted on 01/31/2014 6:10:33 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
I might be more sympathetic to this position if I thought that people wouln't be allowed to insult my groups (white, male, Christian, Southern) too. But we both know that not one of these groups will be protected

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

24 posted on 01/31/2014 6:11:51 AM PST by chesley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


25 posted on 01/31/2014 6:12:07 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


26 posted on 01/31/2014 6:15:37 AM PST by wjr123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: all the best

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.


27 posted on 01/31/2014 6:15:56 AM PST by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

My apologies for the mistake. Doesn’t change my point, though.


28 posted on 01/31/2014 6:16:24 AM PST by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

If you are not free to say what you think, you are not free.


29 posted on 01/31/2014 6:18:35 AM PST by ZX12R (Never forget the heroes of Benghazi, who were abandoned to their deaths by Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


30 posted on 01/31/2014 6:19:31 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

There cannot be ‘Free Speech’ for some if there is not ‘Free Speech’ for all.......................


31 posted on 01/31/2014 6:20:11 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stremba
The First Ammendment was INTENDED to protect speech that the majority finds offensive.

The First Ammendment was to protect speech that the GOVERNMENT finds offensive. .....

32 posted on 01/31/2014 6:21:33 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


33 posted on 01/31/2014 6:22:49 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PAR35; stremba

Ammen.................


34 posted on 01/31/2014 6:22:51 AM PST by Red Badger (Proud member of the Zeta Omicron Tau Fraternity since 2004...................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps

“”””I’m offended by gay pride parades.”””””

Me too.

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.


35 posted on 01/31/2014 6:25:52 AM PST by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Should you? Freedom isn’t a selective process of who gets it and who doesn’t, that’s communism.


36 posted on 01/31/2014 6:25:52 AM PST by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


37 posted on 01/31/2014 6:32:24 AM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nepeta
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.

Well said.

38 posted on 01/31/2014 6:34:45 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Of all the dumb questions, this is the dumbest.


39 posted on 01/31/2014 6:35:19 AM PST by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Absolutely!!


40 posted on 01/31/2014 6:36:14 AM PST by SgtHooper (If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Who but a National Socialist of some description could even ask that question?


41 posted on 01/31/2014 6:39:02 AM PST by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


42 posted on 01/31/2014 6:40:09 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: envisio
It works both ways. They can’t shut mine down, I can’t shut theirs down.

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. ;-)

43 posted on 01/31/2014 6:47:30 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.

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.

5.56mm

44 posted on 01/31/2014 6:48:05 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
Remember when the ACLU defended the tattered remnants of the Mid-West Klan and their right to hold a rally in Skokie, Illinois?

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.

45 posted on 01/31/2014 6:56:21 AM PST by Prospero (Si Deus trucido mihi, ego etiam fides Deus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

The right of free speech exists solely for offensive speech. Popular speech doesn’t need protection.


46 posted on 01/31/2014 7:00:08 AM PST by BinaryBoy (RINOs: Not one dollar, not one vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: envisio

How about the democratic convention?


47 posted on 01/31/2014 7:01:44 AM PST by Yorlik803 ( Church/Caboose in 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803
How about the democrat ic convention?

Democrat Party, because there's nothing democratic about it.

48 posted on 01/31/2014 7:10:14 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed & water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Doesn’t change my point,

No, it doesn't. But when we are fighting the 'intellectuals', we don't want to give them ammo for their ad hominem attacks.

49 posted on 01/31/2014 7:38:47 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

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.


50 posted on 01/31/2014 7:41:40 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson