Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
> Democracies have had limitations on freedom of speech for centuries (including things I personally disagree with, like blasphemy laws) and you know what? They've been perfectly fine in the process, and there haven't been attempts to undermine criticism of government because democratic institutions don't allow for it.
This is absolutely false and a very dangerous thing to propagate.
I recommend, for example, "The Tyranny of Silence" a book on how Weimar Republic hate-speech laws (the first, stronger and more sophisticated in history) played an instrumental role in the ascendency of the Nazi party to power.
Very, very few democracies - basically only the "white anglosphere" - have been "perfectly fine" for centuries.
And please spare me any "so you're saying banning racism chants in football will lead to Nazis" ridiculous strawman because nobody is saying that.
But it's extremely important to remain vigilant on and what history shows us is that countries with a very expansive view on freedom of speech have always managed to stay clear from totalitarian regiimes - the best disinfectant of bad ideas is always sunlight.
Football regulating racist chants and insults out of the stands is good but that shouldn't conduct us to a cavalier attitude about limitations on speech, either in the private or public sphere, and voices like /u/appletesla4728 should be heard.
A democracy where society is widespread comfortable with elements of repression on speech is already a sick democracy. It doesn't mean it'll inevitably die, but it's a dangerous place to be. Cultures more tolerant of limitations on speech are more fertile ground for totalitarian/authoritarian regimes.
One can have the necessary limitations on freedom of speech while always remaining cautious and alert about them.
> I think several of the polls you link here fail to identify the divide between "far left extremists" and the right in defining offensive and hate speech. I'm sure you yourself would identify with a much narrower definition than someone as unhinged as me. What are your thoughts on someone like Milo Yiannopoulos or Candace Owens? Would you argue that they deserve a space in the discourse, or that their ideas are just as valid as any other? Do you think they are hateful people?
Milos I think I know who it is, the other name is familiar but don't really know who that is.
It's utterly irrelevant though: my opinion on the 1A and free-speech is the same of the current Supreme Court emanated doctrine, as expressed on Brandenburg v. Ohio, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie et al.
It doesn't matter if it's Milos, Candence or whoever. That's completely immaterial. I couldn't care less if they're hateful or lovely - that should have no bear on their right to free-speech.
Read some history books. Read something about how Germany was the first country to implement hate speech laws during the Weimar Republic (and some Americans actually thought it was a great idea and that american should adopt it to stop extremisms.... ooops) and use them frequently agains the national-socialist party.
For example, this is a great book about this topic:
Here's a New Yorker interview with the author:
Your country is a collection of crazy that has already given us the Nazis - by having the same idiotic anti-speech laws - and will give us the next ones for the exact same reason.ºº
>Your right for free speech ends where the right of someone else gets violated.
Sure, every censor ever claimed this. Every single one. You really don't understand the problem with this, do you?
>ine stay in your country, full of climate change "sceptics", creationists, flat earthers, pro livers, religious zealots and get yourself a nice gun while shopping at Walmart to participate in your daily mass shootings.
Imagine being such a basic person you think anyone defending free-speech is American and then paint such a version of America.
>Just don't complain that people will laugh at you when you are so ignorant that you can't even grasp that people in different countries have different values they want to protect, especially if you call them stupid, too.
IS all that bitterness over the II World War or something?
>How ignorant can you actually be to think I would care about your Supreme Court and worse value it higher as my own Bundesverfassungsgericht?
I would think that the fact that millions of Americans had to travel to Europe and die to protect people from your country (twice) and not the other way around would clue you in what is the best approach?
If you think bad ideas are best fought with censorship and not with good ideas, you're just wrong. History has proven it over and over. And you're just repeating the same mistakes.
You can start by this book, The Tyranny of Silence https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Silence-Flemming-Rose/dp/1939709997
>contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.
I'm the type of person who reads books.
That's why I know how this sort of laws tend to historically have disastrous results and places with expansive free-speech laws tend to be much better at coarting bad ideas by exposing them to the sunlight - the most famous example, being, ironically, the fact the Weimar Republic had the strongest and most sophisticated hate-speech laws at the time.
A great book on this is Flemming Rose's A Tyranny of Silence:
The type of person who disagrees with this view tends to be the type of person who avoids actually discussing the issues by simply trying to discuss/attack persons.
>also I'm sure the protection of hate speech in America has nothing to do with the rise of white supremacy and Nazism around the US no sir just a coincidence for sure hahahahaha
Nazis in the US? Are you mentally ill or something?
Imagine being so uneducated that you don't know that there were hate speech laws in Germany and they were actually a factor in the rise of the Nazis - and ,of course, used by Nazis to solidify their power!
In fact, the US, with the expansive 1st Amendment, are the country that had never had to deal with Nazi or Communist governments; while totalitarian ideologies always thrived exactly where there were "hate speech" laws in place. It's almost like telling people "you know, censorship and sending people to prison for their political views can be okay, as long as it's people you and I disagree with" is evidently self-defeating and counter-productive in the long run!!
That's why so many millions of Americans had to go fight in Europe to save European from the Nazis and not the other way around.
You need to read more, kid.
Basically, the best way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas. Not with bad ideas like censorship. That has always produced bad results in the history of civilization. Then again, without reading (actual books, not reddit headlines and video games story plots), without knowing history, you'll never understand this.