Lessons from the Holocaust, ban hatespeech, or support free speech?

[Syamsu]

Some people take as lesson from the Holocaust, to ban hatespeech. Their reasoning is that if hatespeech had been banned in Germany, then the nazi's would have been put in jail, and then the holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, that the nazi's might have kept silent about hating Jews, rose to power all the same, and once in power perpetrate the Holocaust anyway.

There is another lesson that could be drawn from the history, which might have prevented the Holocaust. And that is the lesson that personal character of people can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and cannot be established as a fact of biology, as the nazi's believed.

So then instead of curtailing free speech, by banning hatespeech, the lesson would be to establish the whole concept of a chosen personal opinion, supporting the whole idea of free speech.

The idea is then that you need emotions to choose a personal opinion on what the personal character of someone is, and by inviting emotions in, people would not be as coldhearted and calculating as the nazi's were with their scientific racism. So then the Holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, the nazi's would go into a turmoil of subjective hatespeech, instead of scientific hatespeech, and the Holocaust would have occurred anyway.

 

[aociswundumho]

The lesson from the Holocaust is that governments are immoral, murderous entities, hence we should do everything possible to reduce the power of the state.

Their reasoning is that if hatespeech had been banned in Germany, then the nazi's would have been put in jail, and then the holocaust would not have occurred.

The number one reason Hitler weaseled his way into power was because of his ability as a demagogue. It wouldn't matter one bit if so-called "hate speech" were illegal at the time.

Anyway, hate speech laws always benefit the state, because what is and what isn't "hate speech" is completely subjective.

 

[ecofarm]

Does ISIS have the right to publish anything they want in America? I'm pretty sure terrorist rhetoric is not free speech.

 

[Fishking]

Some people take as lesson from the Holocaust, to ban hatespeech. Their reasoning is that if hatespeech had been banned in Germany, then the nazi's would have been put in jail, and then the holocaust would not have occurred

Authoritarian regimes have always banned speech. It's one of the hallmarks to look for, and indication. So anyone that is pushing for hate speech bans should be looked at skeptically, as there are likely a host of other authoritarian ideals that they also would be OK pushing.

 

[TheParser]

Oh, yes.

Hate speech should always be banned.

The only problem: What is "hate speech"?

A Supreme Court justice once famously remarked that he could not define "pornography," but he knew it when he saw it.

Well, we will have to leave the matter up to our courts. If they see something as "hate speech," then it will be banned. So that's why which political party gets to appoint judges is so important.

Right now, Facebook and Twitter and other message boards have moderators who make that decision, as many posters have discovered, including a certain former President.

 

[Irredentist]

Authoritarian regimes have always banned speech. It's one of the hallmarks to look for, and indication. So anyone that is pushing for hate speech bans should be looked at skeptically, as there are likely a host of other authoritarian ideals that they also would be OK pushing.

Right, because modern Germany is such an authoritarian place...

 

[Fishking]

Right, because modern Germany is such an authoritarian place...

Correct.

 

[Irredentist]

Correct.

Incorrect. Modern Germany is a liberal democratic federal republic.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Stop treating this as if it's an either-or game, how's that sound for starters?
Hate speech is intolerance, yes?
Is tolerance absolutely unlimited?
If it is, I can guarantee you that history knows that is a sure fire recipe for the intolerant to USE tolerance as a WEAPON in order to dismantle tolerance.

If that sounds like a paradox, it's because it is.

"When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant, the tolerant ones end up being destroyed, and tolerance with them."



All that having been said, the law alone cannot deal with this adequately, and government cannot eliminate intolerance simply by dishing out legal penalties.
Consequences and penalties against the intolerant take many forms, most of which have little or nothing to do with government.

 

[Fishking]

Incorrect. Modern Germany is a liberal democratic federal republic.

There are many things I can do in the U.S. that would make me a criminal in Germany, wrong-think speech being one of them.

 

[Syamsu]

The lesson from the Holocaust is that governments are immoral, murderous entities, hence we should do everything possible to reduce the power of the state.



The number one reason Hitler weaseled his way into power was because of his ability as a demagogue. It wouldn't matter one bit if so-called "hate speech" were illegal at the time.

Anyway, hate speech laws always benefit the state, because what is and what isn't "hate speech" is completely subjective.

Technically, if you state as scientific fact that some people are selfish and greedy, then you make a statement without emotion, as it is just asserted as a statement of fact, so then without either love or hate. So could scientific racism actually be legally be said to be hatespeech?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Some people take as lesson from the Holocaust, to ban hatespeech. Their reasoning is that if hatespeech had been banned in Germany, then the nazi's would have been put in jail, and then the holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, that the nazi's might have kept silent about hating Jews, rose to power all the same, and once in power perpetrate the Holocaust anyway.

There is another lesson that could be drawn from the history, which might have prevented the Holocaust. And that is the lesson that personal character of people can only be identified with a chosen opinion, and cannot be established as a fact of biology, as the nazi's believed.

So then instead of curtailing free speech, by banning hatespeech, the lesson would be to establish the whole concept of a chosen personal opinion, supporting the whole idea of free speech.

The idea is then that you need emotions to choose a personal opinion on what the personal character of someone is, and by inviting emotions in, people would not be as coldhearted and calculating as the nazi's were with their scientific racism. So then the Holocaust would not have occurred.

The counter to that would be, the nazi's would go into a turmoil of subjective hatespeech, instead of scientific hatespeech, and the Holocaust would have occurred anyway.

What hate speech do you feel has been banned?

 

[Irredentist]

There are many things I can do in the U.S. that would make me a criminal in Germany, wrong-think speech being one of them.

There are things you can do in Germany that are illegal in the US. Your logic is bad.

 

[Syamsu]

Right, because modern Germany is such an authoritarian place...

There is much more authoritarian societal control in Germany, and Europe in general, than in the USA.

In the Netherlands someone is fined 500 euro's for calling the police flapdoodles, on facebook. Some cartoonist is arrested for making hatespeech against Islam. So you get a sense, of the really very present societal control over everything, in Europe.

 

[Irredentist]

There is much more authoritarian societal control in Germany, and Europe in general, than in the USA.

In the Netherlands someone is fined 500 euro's for calling the police flapdoodles, on facebook. Some cartoonist is arrested for making hatespeech against Islam. So you get a sense, of the really very present societal control over everything, in Europe.

And yet in the Netherlands you have one of the lowest rates of incarceration in all of Europe, while in the US, we have the highest prison population in the world.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Oh, yes.

Hate speech should always be banned.

The only problem: What is "hate speech"?

A Supreme Court justice once famously remarked that he could not define "pornography," but he knew it when he saw it.

Well, we will have to leave the matter up to our courts. If they see something as "hate speech," then it will be banned. So that's why which political party gets to appoint judges is so important.

Right now, Facebook and Twitter and other message boards have moderators who make that decision, as many posters have discovered, including a certain former President.

A succinct description of exactly why "hate speech" laws should be found unconstitutional. Judges should never decide who gets to profess what belief.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Stop treating this as if it's an either-or game, how's that sound for starters?
Hate speech is intolerance, yes?
Is tolerance absolutely unlimited?
If it is, I can guarantee you that history knows that is a sure fire recipe for the intolerant to USE tolerance as a WEAPON in order to dismantle tolerance.

If that sounds like a paradox, it's because it is.

"When we extend tolerance to those who are openly intolerant, the tolerant ones end up being destroyed, and tolerance with them."

View attachment 67341198

All that having been said, the law alone cannot deal with this adequately, and government cannot eliminate intolerance simply by dishing out legal penalties.
Consequences and penalties against the intolerant take many forms, most of which have little or nothing to do with government.

Hate speech is not intolerance. Intolerance is the unwillingness to grant equal rights, protections, or freedom of expression. The intolerant often spout hate speech, but speech has a special protection in the constitution for a reason.

The only meaningful "hate speech," then, is advocacy against the rights of others.

 

[MaryP]

Hate speech is not intolerance. Intolerance is the unwillingness to grant equal rights, protections, or freedom of expression. The intolerant often spout hate speech, but speech has a special protection in the constitution for a reason.

The only meaningful "hate speech," then, is advocacy against the rights of others.

So if a group advocates for segregated communities as the best way to achieve harmony for all, is that not infringing on the rights of others to live where they like? Constantly pointing out violence and criticizing life styles in a community can certainly sway others to have a negative attitude toward that group. So they might decide not to hire a person from that group. Doesn't that affect the person's right to happiness if it's hard to find a good job?

No one can stop anyone from having an opinion. We can stop them from having a soap box for it, and I think we should. Hate speech is the sludge of discourse, where ignorant stereotypes get spread to others like a bad rash. I agree with Checkerboard Strangler that tolerating intolerance, as our government seems determined to do, will eventually be our downfall. Our laws say we're equal. The words we spread in public shouldn't contradict that.

 

[AmNat]

Our laws say we're equal. The words we spread in public shouldn't contradict that.

If the law contradicts reality, the problem lies with the law rather than reality.

 

[MaryP]

If the law contradicts reality, the problem lies with the law rather than reality.

If the reality is negative, laws are enacted to improve it.

Do we wait until no one commits murder before we pass laws against it?

 

[AmNat]

If the reality is negative, laws are enacted to improve it.

If you pass a law against gravity, will that change what happens when you jump off a tall building?

 

[MaryP]

If you pass a law against gravity, will that change what happens when you jump off a tall building?

We can't suspend gravity, but we can suspend public hate speech by not giving it a public platform.

 

[AmNat]

We can't suspend gravity, but we can suspend public hate speech by not giving it a public platform.

Right. So when you've got a society where it's illegal to say that gravity exists (because that would be hate speech), what will happen when people jump off tall buildings?

 

[MaryP]

Right. So when you've got a society where it's illegal to say that gravity exists (because that would be hate speech), what will happen when people jump off tall buildings?

What dire consequences do you see if hate speech is curtailed in this country? That is what you are implying.

 

[AmNat]

What dire consequences do you see if hate speech is curtailed in this country? That is what you are implying.

Immediately very little. Most people have enough sense not to jump off tall buildings (or visit "bad neighborhoods"), even if the media and the government told them gravity wasn't real.

The problem is long-term. A society that denies reality will find it harder and harder to make things work . . . especially once everyone who grew up before the denial started is dead.