Matt Foley
Death2Globalists
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,574
- Reaction score
- 641
- Location
- ExecuteTheTraitors
- Political Leaning
- Other
Free speech protects unpopular speech as well.
It's quite a bit stronger than putting a Cycle and Hammer on a socialist candidate.
you can't? Surely, likely depending on how you went about it, you might end up detained, and investigated, but you would never be charged for saying mean things to the man (example, the guy who told Cheney to **** off in New Orleans). Also, this board is private and not a function of the state, so you don't have rights to free speech here
You're logic isn't even basic dude.
I was going to chime in an blow your ship outta the water, but others are doung such a fine job, I'm just gonna sit back watch the turkey shoot.
i know, to you it must seem like my IQ is at the genius level, apparently.
I plainly quoted Hitler saying that nazis were nothing more than marxists, in essence, making them wholly indistinguishable, logically, from communism.
Crying about the truth that commies and nazis are a bunch of leftist turds in the same toilet bowl of socialism doesn't change the fact they are.
What's next guys, fingers in your ears? Gonna hold your breath? Please do.
you can't? Surely, likely depending on how you went about it, you might end up detained, and investigated, but you would never be charged for saying mean things to the man (example, the guy who told Cheney to **** off in New Orleans). Also, this board is private and not a function of the state, so you don't have rights to free speech here
i know, to you it must seem like my IQ is at the genius level, apparently.
I plainly quoted Hitler saying that nazis were nothing more than marxists, in essence, making them wholly indistinguishable, logically, from communism.
Crying about the truth that commies and nazis are a bunch of leftist turds in the same toilet bowl of socialism doesn't change the fact they are.
What's next guys, fingers in your ears? Gonna hold your breath? Please do.
What someone yelled at Dick Cheney, and what would happen to someone in the example I gave are two different matters. You said yourself; "you might be detained"; thrown in the jug for eight hours is more like it. And with repsect to this board: you missed the point about free speech . . .
I hope the french judges kick the NF's case out -mind you this will be good publicity for Madonna's next concert in Nice.
This will be an interesting case to follow - I think Madonna will come out best from this and hopefully some who supported the French far-right will be shown up for the scum they are. The French Govt should award Mademoiselle Madonna a Légion d'honneur for this.
Well, you can, and can get arrested then get paid:
Couple Arrested at Bush Rally Settles Lawsuit for $80,000
Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."
On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."
When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.
I guess being on public lands at a public event they must've not been standing in their "free speech zone" Bush was giving us back then.
yes, we have very narrow restrictions on free speech. That doesn't mean we approach the matter in the same way as every other state with such restrictions, especially those as expansive as some of the European states. Also, libel and slander are almost impossible to seek damages for, when discussing public figures
Public figures only scratche the surface. When somebody makes up stories about someone else's business for example, the libeler is taken court and often has a judgement rendered against them.
I'd like for you to elaborate on your point about European states though.
Europe simply draws the "shouting fire in a theatre" line in a different place.
We feel that some views are so repellent and vile they have no place in public discourse.
Europe simply draws the "shouting fire in a theatre" line in a different place.
We feel that some views are so repellent and vile they have no place in public discourse.
Agreed.
Tolerance towards rabid intolerance doesn't make sense. It's like asking a cannibal to be a good boy and say his prayer before he eats you.
And Americans shouldn't be on a high horse on that topic. The laws against hate speech in Europe are tame compared to what Americans do with Muslim terror suspects. At least our neo-Nazis get a fair trial and their rights are respected when they get a punishment, we don't let our executive systematically kidnap them from the streets, extralegally detain them, torture them and deny them a lawyer without any court ever being able to rule against it.
No one is preaching tolerance for intolerance. But acknowledging outlawing ideas doesn't make them go a way, and in many senses, allows them to flourish by going unchallenged. And while I agree our approach towards terror suspects is problematic, to say the least, they are not being prosecuted for simply disseminating unpopular ideas. Like in the above cited case
Don't get me wrong, I can fully understand why views evolved differently in western Europe. I just don't agree with it
PS I agree with much of the criticism lobbed at the us govt in it's approach to terrorism. But some of the policies are driven by politics, as opposed to interests of the state (at least that's my impression as an "insider")
Tolerance towards rabid intolerance doesn't make sense.
To answer the questions if Nazis are "left" or "right", you first need to define "left" and "right". That's hard to do, but some models are more helpful and have more explanatory power than others.
Many Americans, especially on the right, seem to believe the spectrum is just one-dimensional, while "right" means small government and "left" means big government. By that definition, the Nazis were certainly "left". But I believe this model is deficient, cannot explain much if anything at all.
By all other meaningful models to define "left" or "right", the Nazis were clearly far-right. Pre-enlightened authoritarianism supposing humans don't have equal rights? Check. Rabid nationalism/rah rah patriotism? Check. Militarism? Check. Ethnic chauvinism and anti-Semitism? Check. Rejection of liberal democracy? Check. All of this had traditionally been elements of the monarchist conservative right.
In 19th century Germany, there was a monarchist authoritarian "big government" right against classic liberalism (along the lines of modern libertarianism) on the left. In Weimar Germany, "small government" was centrist - The monarchist conservatives were just as much "big government" as the far left commies. The "right" had always been traditionally anti-democratic and authoritarian in Germany and the Nazis just took this monarchist conservatism to the extreme.
The one-dimensional spectrum provides no means to explain political philosophies in Germany until 1945 accurately.
When American right-wingers try to view the situation in Germany pre-1945 through the glasses of modern day political buzzwords, desperately attempting to smear the "librulz", it makes them look silly.
To answer the questions if Nazis are "left" or "right", you first need to define "left" and "right". That's hard to do, but some models are more helpful and have more explanatory power than others.
Many Americans, especially on the right, seem to believe the spectrum is just one-dimensional, while "right" means small government and "left" means big government. By that definition, the Nazis were certainly "left". But I believe this model is deficient, cannot explain much if anything at all.
By all other meaningful models to define "left" or "right", the Nazis were clearly far-right. Pre-enlightened authoritarianism supposing humans don't have equal rights? Check. Rabid nationalism/rah rah patriotism? Check. Militarism? Check. Ethnic chauvinism and anti-Semitism? Check. Rejection of liberal democracy? Check. All of this had traditionally been elements of the monarchist conservative right.
In 19th century Germany, there was a monarchist authoritarian "big government" right against classic liberalism (along the lines of modern libertarianism) on the left. In Weimar Germany, "small government" was centrist - The monarchist conservatives were just as much "big government" as the far left commies. The "right" had always been traditionally anti-democratic and authoritarian in Germany and the Nazis just took this monarchist conservatism to the extreme.
The one-dimensional spectrum provides no means to explain political philosophies in Germany until 1945 accurately.
When American right-wingers try to view the situation in Germany pre-1945 through the glasses of modern day political buzzwords, desperately attempting to smear the "librulz", it makes them look silly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?