I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend... - is it valid stance?

[Dānu]

I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.
This is seen by some commentators here as condoning—even by implication—her constant homophobic and
same-sex marriages and adoption slurs as being acceptable as public commentary. This by a person who, unlike
others, has a readily accessible stage from which to deliver this offensive drivel, and to a wide audience.

Simply because she can serve and return a ball with skill a bit better than that of average players doesn't accord
her the "right" to disparage other members of society—based solely on their gender or sexuality.

I note also that Court publicly supported apartheid in South Africa, and said of Martina Navratilova; "a great player
but I'd like someone at the top who the younger players can look up to. It's very sad for children to be exposed to
homosexuality".  (Both opinions from the 1970s.)

—How would this speech by the Minister for Sports go down...


"I'd like to welcome Margaret to this 50th Anniversary celebration of
her Grand Slam wins, and although she has a head like a fossilised
turtle, [crowd laughs] and is a long-term homophobe, I'm sure we all
extend our appreciation of her outstanding tennis career, particularly
as a proudly cis-gendered person".

You're either using the phrase "government subsidize all speech" so loosely that it no longer has any real meaning, or else you're trying to equate two things that aren't at all equal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think anyone here is demanding that government subsidize all speech.

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.

[Szuchow]

I found interesting article* today and given it pertinence to the subject I decided to share parts of it:

Do anti-fascist activists agree that obstructing fascists in public gatherings is a violation of their freedom of speech?

Classical liberalism treats freedom of speech as the central dogma of its supposedly "neutral" ideology. That is why the discussion revolves around the legitimacy of the "universal" principle that society should not restrict political expression. If one understands this principle as a value rather than a legal provision, it is clear that anti-fascism opposes its absolutist forms (e.g. saying that any limitation of speech is a mistake). Instead, many anti-fascists formulate a non-liberal thesis: "No freedom of speech for fascists. From their perspective, the priority is the security and prosperity of marginalized groups. As Joe, an activist at the Raleigh-Durham General Defense Committee, argued, "the belief that freedom of speech is the most important thing we should protect can only be proclaimed by someone who thinks that life is like a meeting room. Not allowing fascists to speak often means violating their freedom of speech, but it is justified by the role they play in the political struggle against fascism.

No matter how anti-fascist define themselves, they undoubtedly value a free and open exchange of ideas - they simply draw the line between those who use this freedom to promote genocide or deny humanity to someone.

It is worth noting, however, that the majority of those who oppose restrictions on speech for political reasons are not absolutists in freedom of speech at all. Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison. If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say. It does not bother many people that the police, by hunting for people who do not have a residence permit, are invalidating their freedom of speech and, at the same time, strengthening the discourse of the Ku Klux Klan by protecting it. Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race.

These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism. In fact, the liberal criteria for restricting freedom of expression are imbued with the ubiquitous logic of capital, militarism, nationalism, colonialism and institutional racism. Whenever one or more of these factors limits the ability of a human being to express himself, it is a political matter.

Instead of reducing the complicated discussion to Manichean juxtapositions of the supposedly 'for' and 'against' factions, it makes much more sense to compare the competitive criteria for restricting freedom of speech, taking into account the public interest. The claim that anti-fascist people are "against freedom of speech" is false and imprecise when no one really lives up to the absolute standard by which they are judged. In turn, a society that seeks to create anti-authoritarianism would provide far more opportunities for free self-expression for far more people than the status quo defended by their liberal critics.

Does not preventing fascists from speaking out destroy freedom of expression so that it harms the left rather than the right?

If we understand non-voting as a legalistic tendency to support a ban on criticizing the government, then yes. For example, the Public Order Act in the UK was used against the National Front, but also against the miners on strike between 1984 and 1985. Continental European countries, such as Germany, have rights against the negatives, but at the same time they often restrict the revolutionary language on the left. This is why German anti-fascist politicians consider the state authorities to be an enemy, not an ally, and seek to neutralize fascists through direct action rather than through state aid.

In any case, whatever the Left thinks, the historical facts clearly show that the State will find an excuse to intervene if it needs it. When the radical left was threatening the interests of the elites, it was being repressed and will continue to be repressed in the future - that is as clear as day. One could argue that, as persecution grows, militant anti-fascism destroys popular support for the Left. However, the anti-fascist argument is that this is not primarily about a strategy of non-voting. It is fundamental to understand fascism as a political enemy with which we cannot coexist in public space.

Silencing the Nazis makes you no better than a Nazi!


Since historically the Nazis and other fascists are known for silencing and censoring the events of their left-wing opponents, some believe that anyone who tries to prevent a political meeting, even if it is a Nazi meeting, is a Nazi himself. Fascists are also known for being nationalists, starting wars and building prisons: does that mean that anarchists can accuse liberals, who are also famous for that, of being fascists? Obviously, ideology cannot be defined solely on the basis of one of its characteristics. Although liberals support the violation of freedom of expression much more than most anti-fascists, they imagine themselves as guardians of freedom, and therefore attack the non-liberal policy of anti-fascist, dressing it in the non-liberal policy of fascism.

If your main objection to Nazism is that the Nazis block assemblies of their opponents, it says more about your political views than about the views of those you criticize. Antipascists do not oppose fascism because it is non-liberal in the abstract, but because it promotes racism, heteronormative patriarchalism, extreme nationalism, authoritarianism and genocide.


*Actually an excerpt from Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook by Mark Bray.

[Deesse23]

Very well written, and mirrors much of my thoughts, particularly about *absolute* free speech being a red herring (am i repeating myself? ).

However the author is making a big mistake, one very common (amongst the antifa): He equates being anti-fascist with being on the far left. He is trying to monopolize anti-fascim for the far left. Probably because he is far left ideologically himself, and the antifa movement in general always was strongly far left/anarchist. Anti-fascism is like atheism: You are just against fascim, it does not tell what you are for.

[SYZ]

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, payMilo Yiannopoulos
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win...

You're either using the phrase "government subsidize all speech" so loosely that it no longer has any real meaning, or else you're trying to equate two things that aren't at all equal.

The Australian government is effectively enabling this woman to magnify the reach of her offensive "platform" of
homophobia by using taxpayer (my) dollars.  That's why I used the phrase "in the case of Margaret Court"
in my comment.  I wasn't suggesting in any way that government subsidise "all speech", as you've claimed.

Would you be happy if the government provided the UK neo-Nazi and white nationalist Milo Yiannopoulos  with
an all-expenses paid tour to the US courtesy of the taxpayer?

The State of Victoria needs to leave Court stewing in her own Pentecostal cult's church, tucked out of sight, and
unrecognised in some quiet corner of the Western Australian boondocks.

[SYZ]

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.

It was just a loose connection to governments subsidising any speech by private
individuals with a particularly offensive axe to grind.    Like Margaret Court.

Court is now saying that if the government doesn't fund her trip, she's not gonna
attend the 2020 Open in Melbourne.  Well, boo-fucking-hoo.

[Dānu]

As far as I can see, it doesn't appear that the government is subsidizing speech in the case of Margaret Court, and you were responding to Thump's comment about "government subsidize all speech," which is why it was in quotes. I assumed you would be smart enough to figure out that I was referring to your apparent suggestion that the government was subsidizing Margaret Court's speech, but I guess I was wrong. You've got an extremely loose definition, as noted. I doubt your example would pass court muster. Do you have a similar example where your court has held that similar things are "speech" such that I can conclude that your example isn't the pure bollocks that it appears to be?

You and Szuchow seem to have the same problem in that many of your examples of "speech" don't appear to be verifiable examples of speech. The article Szuchow posted appeared to have the same problem, and the author's phrasing and reaching was so extreme that I couldn't even figure out exactly what the author was referring to in most cases. Non-voting is speech? My ass. Tonight I'll not be figure skating, growing peas, or performing the Nutcracker Suite. I guess I'm just mouthy that way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In the case of Margaret Court, the woman is demanding that the Australian government, IE the taxpayers, pay
for her attendance at the 2020 Australian Open, and to "honour" the 50-year anniversary of her Grand Slam win.

I'm not sure how this is germane to my point.

It was just a loose connection to governments subsidising any speech by private
individuals with a particularly offensive axe to grind.    Like Margaret Court.

Was she scheduled to speak at any functions for the ceremony? I could see that as possibly subsidizing her speech. But if she wasn't scheduled to speak, then there's no speech to subsidize. Comping her air tickets and other goodies may send a message of approval for her views, but if they're not underwriting her expression of her views but only her attendance fees, it isn't a subsidy, but rather, a gift.

"Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison."

Well, duh. All rights have restrictions.

"If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say."

If we reformulate the terms of the discussion a little further, we can say that anti-fascists want to act like Fascists but be treated differently.

"Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race."

Ad homeneim. Can he define "many"? Probably not, which renders this point a broad-brush as well.

"These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism."

I'm anti-fascist as well. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to act like a fascist while being anti-fascist. It smacks of hypocrisy and gives the fascists a legitimate talking point about persecution.

It reminds me of the American officer who explained that "we had to destroy the town in order to save it."

Something about gazing into an abyss comes to mind as well.

[Szuchow]

"Everyone has their own exceptions to the rule: obscenity, incitement to violence, copyright infringement, censorship of the press during the war or the imposition of restrictions on people in prison."

Well, duh. All rights have restrictions.

That's why I don't have issue with restricting fascists "right" to spread hatred.

"If we reformulate the terms of the discussion to take account of these exceptions, we will see that many Liberals are in favor of restricting the freedom of speech of working class teenagers imprisoned for possession of drugs, but do not want to restrict what the Nazis say."

If we reformulate the terms of the discussion a little further, we can say that anti-fascists want to act like Fascists but be treated differently.

There is no shortage of voice claiming exactly that (in Poland at least). I guess lessons that history impart are fleeting.

Also I gotta say that relabeling antifascists as fascists is probably one of greatest victories that bunch of losers making up modern fascists ever achieved.

"Many support a reduction in cigarette advertising, but not in advertising that promotes the superiority of the white race."

Ad homeneim. Can he define "many"? Probably not, which renders this point a broad-brush as well.

I don't know as I quoted part of what was already only excerpt. 

"These are all examples of restrictions on freedom of expression. The only difference is that liberals regard their restrictions as apolitical, while anti-fascists openly accept a political rejection of fascism."

I'm anti-fascist as well. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to act like a fascist while being anti-fascist. It smacks of hypocrisy and gives the fascists a legitimate talking point about persecution.

It reminds me of the American officer who explained that "we had to destroy the town in order to save it."

Something about gazing into an abyss comes to mind as well.

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist. As you said in the beginning of the post All rights have restrictions. Rights of fascists should not be exception. 

I see no need to clarify my position further, though as I wrote enough to make it abundantly clear.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist.

The restrictions I accept on free speech are those which directly prevent harm -- death threats, calls to violent disorder, that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger. 

On the other hand, the restrictions you support are prophylactic, restricting speech because it may result in a hypothetical genocide even if the speaker has an audience of three or seven listeners.

In others words, I don't think our disagreement is fundamental; I think our disagreement is about where we draw that line of limitation. We both agree that no right is unlimited.

I think curtailing the rights of even fascists to speak their political views is unfair unless and until they commit to supporting violence and when those efforts can or do result in the rights of others being abrogated. And no matter what the author you quoted thinks, that does not make me a fascist supporter. Criminalizing political speech does not meet this standard.

I personally am suspicious of anyone who would adopt the techniques of fascism to spread their own views, because as I pointed out earlier, the use of violence to deprive others of rights -- and imprisonment is a form of violence -- is dangerous no matter who wields that power.

[grympy]

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist.

The restrictions I accept on free speech are those which directly prevent harm -- death threats, calls to violent disorder, that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger. 

On the other hand, the restrictions you support are prophylactic, restricting speech because it may result in a hypothetical genocide even if the speaker has an audience of three or seven listeners.

In others words, I don't think our disagreement is fundamental; I think our disagreement is about where we draw that line of limitation. We both agree that no right is unlimited.

I think curtailing the rights of even fascists to speak their political views is unfair unless and until they commit to supporting violence and when those efforts can or do result in the rights of others being abrogated. And no matter what the author you quoted thinks, that does not make me a fascist supporter. Criminalizing political speech does not meet this standard.

I personally am suspicious of anyone who would adopt the techniques of fascism to spread their own views, because as I pointed out earlier, the use of violence to deprive others of rights -- and imprisonment is a form of violence -- is dangerous no matter who wields that power.

 
Puts me in mind of an old saying ;


"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

[Szuchow]

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist.

The restrictions I accept on free speech are those which directly prevent harm -- death threats, calls to violent disorder, that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger. 

On the other hand, the restrictions you support are prophylactic, restricting speech because it may result in a hypothetical genocide even if the speaker has an audience of three or seven listeners.

In others words, I don't think our disagreement is fundamental; I think our disagreement is about where we draw that line of limitation. We both agree that no right is unlimited.

I think curtailing the rights of even fascists to speak their political views is unfair unless and until they commit to supporting violence and when those efforts can or do result in the rights of others being abrogated. And no matter what the author you quoted thinks, that does not make me a fascist supporter. Criminalizing political speech does not meet this standard.

I personally am suspicious of anyone who would adopt the techniques of fascism to spread their own views, because as I pointed out earlier, the use of violence to deprive others of rights -- and imprisonment is a form of violence -- is dangerous no matter who wields that power.

 
Puts me in mind of an old saying ;


"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

If USSR wouldn't fight for peace Europe would speak German now... That is part of Europe that would survive genocidal plans of Reich.

[Szuchow]

Seems that we fundamentally disagree as I don't agree that wanting to curtail "right" of fascists to incite hate equal acting like fascist.

The restrictions I accept on free speech are those which directly prevent harm -- death threats, calls to violent disorder, that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger.

So you should be for restricting speech like "praying for islamic Holocaust" or calling for make Europe white.

On the other hand, the restrictions you support are prophylactic, restricting speech because it may result in a hypothetical genocide even if the speaker has an audience of three or seven listeners.

This is very uncharitable view. I'm for restriction to prevent normalization of fascism and to make sure that sad clowns won't be able to gather more followers. Poland failed in using it's own laws and now fascism here is normalized, though thankfully some sober voices remain.

In others words, I don't think our disagreement is fundamental; I think our disagreement is about where we draw that line of limitation. We both agree that no right is unlimited.

It isn't one that can be bridged as I don't agree with what seems to me being underlying philosophy of your posts that (almost) all speech is worth protecting.

In short I fully support Poland law on it: 

Whoever publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian state system or incites hatred on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or because of lack of religion, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

Given the wording of it (promote) I don't think that you would agree as per beginning of your post.

I think curtailing the rights of even fascists to speak their political views is unfair unless and until they commit to supporting violence and when those efforts can or do result in the rights of others being abrogated. And no matter what the author you quoted thinks, that does not make me a fascist supporter. Criminalizing political speech does not meet this standard.

I'm not interested at all in being fair to the fascists. Also if atheists can live with blasphemy laws then right wing snowflakes too should be able to live with certain limitations.

I personally am suspicious of anyone who would adopt the techniques of fascism to spread their own views, because as I pointed out earlier, the use of violence to deprive others of rights -- and imprisonment is a form of violence -- is dangerous no matter who wields that power.

I'm more suspicious of those who are using "both sides" pseudo argument and I also don't think that using law to stop fascism is equal to adopting techniques of fascism. It's merely prudence for me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you should be for restricting speech like "praying for islamic Holocaust" or calling for make Europe white.

I specified "that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger." I think both you and I can agree prayer doesn't do that.

This is very uncharitable view. I'm for restriction to prevent normalization of fascism and to make sure that sad clowns won't be able to gather more followers. Poland failed in using it's own laws and now fascism here is normalized, though thankfully some sober voices remain.

That suggests to me that laws aren't an effective tool against ideas. If y'all had laws and didn't enforce 'em, what makes you so sure such laws would actually work in practice?

It isn't one that can be bridged as I don't agree with what seems to me being underlying philosophy of your posts that (almost) all speech is worth protecting.

In short I fully support Poland law on it: 

Whoever publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian state system or incites hatred on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or because of lack of religion, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

Given the wording of it (promote) I don't think that you would agree as per beginning of your post.

And you'd be right. It strives to regulate expression of thought. The idea that what one says or writes should have to pass government muster is inimical to me. The law didn't really seem to help much due to lack of enforcement, from what you've said. Perhaps that's because laws aren't always the best answers if you don't have popular buy-in?

I'm not interested at all in being fair to the fascists. Also if atheists can live with blasphemy laws then right wing snowflakes too should be able to live with certain limitations.

An eye for an eye has been around a long time.

I'm more suspicious of those who are using "both sides" pseudo argument and I also don't think that using law to stop fascism is equal to adopting techniques of fascism. It's merely prudence for me.

Actually, laws limiting speech are characteristic of authoritarian states. I'm surprised you need to be reminded of this.

[Szuchow]

@Thumpalumpacus

When one believe in power of prayer then banner like this stop looking harmless. I certainly wouldn't be against finning whoever carried it.

Laws without thought to enforce them certainly aren't good against ideas. In case of Poland I see issue with underlying tolerance of fascism and meekness of left wing feeling guilty for People Republic of Poland (in the guise of patriotism sometimes) making laws hard to enforce. I'm also not sure if properly enforced laws would work but I'm also not sure if I will be alive next week so this is a moot point.

To me idea that gov should abdicate it's responsibility to citizens and allow fascists to speak frelly is strange one. If that require laws like Poland already have then I see no problem. Also laws might not be best way to stop fascism but I would like to see them enforced effectively before I would dismiss them.

If laws limiting speech are characteristic of authoritarian states then at very least bot Poland and Germany are authoritarian. I won't quibble about Poland (though I don't agree that this is what makes Poland authoritarian) but I can't see Germany as such.

[Szuchow]

So you should be for restricting speech like "praying for islamic Holocaust" or calling for make Europe white.

I specified "that sort of thing which actually puts the lives of people in danger." I think both you and I can agree prayer doesn't do that.

Can't make edit and I was in work when writing previous answer so I will both answer properly and edit now.

For me it is just thin veil of obfuscation making person carrying it* even more pathetic as it lack the courage to proclaim it's hate openly. I certainly wouldn't protest if court would get involved in this.

*it was example of banner being carried on Independence march. For me Holocaust is keyword here with prayer being mere sleight of hand to appear innocuous.

This is very uncharitable view. I'm for restriction to prevent normalization of fascism and to make sure that sad clowns won't be able to gather more followers. Poland failed in using it's own laws and now fascism here is normalized, though thankfully some sober voices remain.

That suggests to me that laws aren't an effective tool against ideas. If y'all had laws and didn't enforce 'em, what makes you so sure such laws would actually work in practice?

Laws without thought to enforce them certainly aren't good against ideas, or against anything else to be honest. In case of Poland I see issue with underlying tolerance of fascism (in the guise of patriotism sometimes) and meekness of left wing feeling guilty for People Republic of Poland  making laws hard to enforce. 

I'm not sure if properly used such laws would have positive effect but I'm not willing to abandon the idea merely because I am not sure. Especially when alternative is giving the fascist free reign.

It isn't one that can be bridged as I don't agree with what seems to me being underlying philosophy of your posts that (almost) all speech is worth protecting.

In short I fully support Poland law on it: 

Whoever publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian state system or incites hatred on the grounds of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or because of lack of religion, shall be subject to a fine, the penalty of restriction of liberty or the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 2 years.

Given the wording of it (promote) I don't think that you would agree as per beginning of your post.

And you'd be right. It strives to regulate expression of thought. The idea that what one says or writes should have to pass government muster is inimical to me. The law didn't really seem to help much due to lack of enforcement, from what you've said. Perhaps that's because laws aren't always the best answers if you don't have popular buy-in?

To me idea that gov should abdicate it's responsibility to citizens and allow fascists to speak freely is strange one, certainly not one that I would be willing to support. If addressing the issue of fascists require laws like Poland already have then I see no problem. Also laws might not be best way to stop fascism but I would like to see them enforced effectively before I would dismiss them.

I'm not interested at all in being fair to the fascists. Also if atheists can live with blasphemy laws then right wing snowflakes too should be able to live with certain limitations.

An eye for an eye has been around a long time.

Perhaps. But I see no reason for speaking in favor of fascists alleged "right" to spread hatred when there is no chance at all to repel blasphemy law. To be fair even without it I wouldn't consider defending fascists.

I'm more suspicious of those who are using "both sides" pseudo argument and I also don't think that using law to stop fascism is equal to adopting techniques of fascism. It's merely prudence for me.

Actually, laws limiting speech are characteristic of authoritarian states. I'm surprised you need to be reminded of this.

Or perhaps laws that you apparently held in low regard  are merely characteristic of different law cultures than USA have? Wikipedia site on Holocaust denial law give good info about law and speech issues in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again...By_country

[Dānu]

@Thumpalumpacus

When one believe in power of prayer then banner like this stop looking harmless. I certainly wouldn't be against finning whoever carried it.

Are you saying that you think prayer itself should be made illegal? Otherwise, you're arguing that people should be banned from doing things which lead to other lawful activities, which would be rather moronic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

@Thumpalumpacus

When one believe in power of prayer then banner like this stop looking harmless. I certainly wouldn't be against finning whoever carried it.

Laws without thought to enforce them certainly aren't good against ideas. In case of Poland I see issue with underlying tolerance of fascism and meekness of left wing feeling guilty for People Republic of Poland (in the guise of patriotism sometimes) making laws hard to enforce. I'm also not sure if properly enforced laws would work but I'm also not sure if I will be alive next week so this is a moot point.

To me idea that gov should abdicate it's responsibility to citizens and allow fascists to speak frelly is strange one. If that require laws like Poland already have then I see no problem. Also laws might not be best way to stop fascism but I would like to see them enforced effectively before I would dismiss them.

If laws limiting speech are characteristic of authoritarian states then at very least bot Poland and Germany are authoritarian. I won't quibble about Poland (though I don't agree that this is what makes Poland authoritarian) but I can't see Germany as such.

My point was that without popular sentiment at hand, all the laws in the world are useless. It is therefore better to work at changing minds, in my view.

As for how these laws might effectively be enforced in the absence of popular support, I think we're going to see Tiananmen Square moments there. Because when the politicians promulgate laws that lack popular support, over time, I think what we see is further disrespect for law as a means for social control. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, but collapse it did. The people saw that the Constitutions of that state were largely window-dressing, still felt the hammer, and decided to be done with it. "L'etat, c'est moi" holds little weight with people going cold, or hungry, or dare I say persecuted for thinking outside the legal box. East Germany was the wealthiest Iron-Curtain state, per-capita, yet they pulled down the wall.

I don't see Germany as authoritarian, but I do disagree with the idea that laws forbidding NaZi expression have been all that successful, considering the late success of AfD. Those laws certainly kept NaZi thinking out of the public discourse, sure, but drove them underground, only to see them resurface lately.

Laws proscribing personal expression seem to me like hunting gnats with sledgehammers. Every so often, you'll hit one and smash it, but more often the gnats flitter about until the arms swinging the hammer get tired. And there we are again, back at square one. We see the same thing in samizdat, and in Hong Kong as we write here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Laws without thought to enforce them certainly aren't good against ideas, or against anything else to be honest. In case of Poland I see issue with underlying tolerance of fascism (in the guise of patriotism sometimes) and meekness of left wing feeling guilty for People Republic of Poland  making laws hard to enforce.

In that case, seeking to have the government enforce laws it clearly doesn't believe in would seem to be just as hard a task as changing the minds of folks who, after all, are the ones supporting the politicians enacting the fascism that is besetting your country. However, laws limiting speech are inherently a double-edged blade so long as the government can decide what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Given that, I'd rather work to change the minds of voters.

I'm not sure if properly used such laws would have positive effect but I'm not willing to abandon the idea merely because I am not sure. Especially when alternative is giving the fascist free reign.

I'm not arguing that fascists should be given free reins. I'm arguing that doing the hard groundwork of changing minds in the polity is a more stable solution that is less-amenable to abuse. Giving the government the power to decide what is and is not acceptable speech is like building a great race-car: you're relying on having a good driver to control all that power safely.

To me idea that gov should abdicate it's responsibility to citizens and allow fascists to speak freely is strange one, certainly not one that I would be willing to support. If addressing the issue of fascists require laws like Poland already have then I see no problem. Also laws might not be best way to stop fascism but I would like to see them enforced effectively before I would dismiss them.

What if, as in other countries, the government decides that supporting free-speech is "reactionary thought"? Or "fascism"?

Let the roaches paint the bull's-eye upon their own backs.

Perhaps. But I see no reason for speaking in favor of fascists alleged "right" to spread hatred when there is no chance at all to repel blasphemy law. To be fair even without it I wouldn't consider defending fascists.

The right to free speech is not and was not designed to protect popular speech. Popular speech does not need defense. The right to free speech is not even designed to protect unpopular speech, although that is its most common use.

The right to free speech was designed to prevent governmental authority from designating which sort of speech is acceptable or unacceptable. That's because when the people who control the police can also legislate your own expression, there is is a dangerous concentration of power which can be at one point or another be used against anyone the government deems a problem.

Quoth John Donne:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

The rights you'd strip from others today are the rights that could be stripped from you in the future. And you'd have no argument, because you will have already agreed that the government can decide what is and is not appropriate political expression. Rights are precious.Defend their expression even when that expression offends you. Because otherwise, your expression may too be deemed offensive.

Or perhaps laws that you apparently held in low regard  are merely characteristic of different law cultures than USA have? Wikipedia site on Holocaust denial law give good info about law and speech issues in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_again...By_country

Yeah, I've don'e a little reading on the topic, beyond wiki as well. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the idea that the "law culture" that allows a government to define acceptable and unacceptable expression might indeed be part of the problem?

[Szuchow]

In that case, seeking to have the government enforce laws it clearly doesn't believe in would seem to be just as hard a task as changing the minds of folks who, after all, are the ones supporting the politicians enacting the fascism that is besetting your country.

Both task are Herculean and neither can be accomplished by me.

However, laws limiting speech are inherently a double-edged blade so long as the government can decide what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Given that, I'd rather work to change the minds of voters.

From my pov them seem to be dull  blade. Also every gov decides what is acceptable and what is not, difference is merely at which point of continuum is stops.

Changing minds of voters would require rehash of education system as when facts offends people there isn't much that can be done. With nationalistic angle being pushed in Polish schools I don't expect much success in trying to transform people views.

I'm not arguing that fascists should be given free reins.

Without law there isn't much standing in their way. Marketplace of ideas might be good idea in theory but I don't support lack of regulation so blatant as to allow fascist to spread hate freely.

I'm arguing that doing the hard groundwork of changing minds in the polity is a more stable solution that is less-amenable to abuse. Giving the government the power to decide what is and is not acceptable speech is like building a great race-car: you're relying on having a good driver to control all that power safely.

I'm not against changing minds I just want laws in place as another safeguard. Relying on just one thing seems too risky to me. Also gov already have power to decide what speech is acceptable - there is no giving involved.

What if, as in other countries, the government decides that supporting free-speech is "reactionary thought"? Or "fascism"?

Let the roaches paint the bull's-eye upon their own backs.

Then I be free to say whatever I want as fascism is coddled here.

The right to free speech is not and was not designed to protect popular speech. Popular speech does not need defense. The right to free speech is not even designed to protect unpopular speech, although that is its most common use.

The right to free speech was designed to prevent governmental authority from designating which sort of speech is acceptable or unacceptable.

Was it? Or it's right is merely about regulating what can be said in civilized society without repercussions? 

If it was designed to do what you say it was then it failed in every country where restrictions of any kind exists. As things stands even US gov regulates what speech is acceptable and what is not - obscenity is most glaring example as (per Wikipedia) it is not legally protected and further internet search tells me that Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses.

That's because when the people who control the police can also legislate your own expression, there is is a dangerous concentration of power which can be at one point or another be used against anyone the government deems a problem.

Very existence of gov makes it capable of bringing power of the state to bear against whatever it deems problematic. 

The rights you'd strip from others today are the rights that could be stripped from you in the future.

Some of my right are stripped already - I must be careful with criticizing religion and going against party line when it comes to Poles crimes against Jews might end badly too.

And you'd have no argument, because you will have already agreed that the government can decide what is and is not appropriate political expression.

No. I agreed that glorifying and promoting fascism should be illegal. But it matters not as even if would be proponent of freest speech imaginable gov wouldn't care about my arguments. 

My stance on things is immaterial when it comes to gov actions as I am merely one voter among millions. 

Rights are precious.Defend their expression even when that expression offends you. Because otherwise, your expression may too be deemed offensive.

Rights certainly are precious. That's why I will not support fascists in anything less my support will give them even tiniest advantage. I may not be a man of many principles but standing side to side with fascists isn't something that I am willing to do.

Their expression does not merely offend me - it is simply dangerous as explosives on Pride parade or thwarted preparation for terrorist attack days ago shows. Ideas like those above do not come from air, some people are spreading hate that makes such seem reasonable.

My expressions already are deemed offensive. Quite the number of Poles can't stomach the truth about Home Army soldiers killing Jews willing to help them fight with nazis for example.

Yeah, I've don'e a little reading on the topic, beyond wiki as well. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the idea that the "law culture" that allows a government to define acceptable and unacceptable  expression might indeed be part of the problem?

I don't agree that gov taking active stance in fighting fascism is a problem in the first place. So similarly I could ask if it occurred to you that USA might be in wrong here?


I'm feeling that I'm just repeating myself so I state this plainly. I don't give a shit about fascist rights nor I deem risk of tyrannical gov which will censor fascist first and then attack others to be realistic. People celebrating Hitler birthday, praying for another Holocaust, claiming that actions bearing sign of genocide aren't such cause perpetrator did not killed more but (allegedly) could can burn for all I care. If jackboots were to come for them I would only laugh secure in knowledge of them getting their just desserts*.

*If jackboots in Poland were to come for anyone then it certainly wouldn't be fascist who would be targeted but people like me, leftists, atheists, those who despise nationalism and antisemitism.

[Szuchow]

My point was that without popular sentiment at hand, all the laws in the world are useless. It is therefore better to work at changing minds, in my view.

My point is that I prefer gov doing something about fascists instead of lounging about and leaving the dirty job of opposing totalitarian thought solely to citizens.

As for how these laws might effectively be enforced in the absence of popular support, I think we're going to see Tiananmen Square moments there. Because when the politicians promulgate laws that lack popular support, over time, I think what we see is further disrespect for law as a means for social control. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, but collapse it did. The people saw that the Constitutions of that state were largely window-dressing, still felt the hammer, and decided to be done with it. "L'etat, c'est moi" holds little weight with people going cold, or hungry, or dare I say persecuted for thinking outside the legal box. East Germany was the wealthiest Iron-Curtain state, per-capita, yet they pulled down the wall.

While fascists certainly don't like laws that targets them (and other people promoting totalitarianism) it's not like Poland populace have any inclination to violently rise in the defense of fascists. 

I don't see Germany as authoritarian, but I do disagree with the idea that laws forbidding NaZi expression have been all that successful, considering the late success of AfD. Those laws certainly kept NaZi thinking out of the public discourse, sure, but drove them underground, only to see them resurface lately.

Deesse23 who have greater knowledge on the subject of Germany than I begs to differ - http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid156969

Laws proscribing personal expression seem to me like hunting gnats with sledgehammers. Every so often, you'll hit one and smash it, but more often the gnats flitter about until the arms swinging the hammer get tired. And there we are again, back at square one. We see the same thing in samizdat, and in Hong Kong as we write here.

Lack of such laws (regarding fascism, nazism and similar ideas) seem to me as total abdication of responsibility that state have toward citizens.

[Dānu]

In that case, seeking to have the government enforce laws it clearly doesn't believe in would seem to be just as hard a task as changing the minds of folks who, after all, are the ones supporting the politicians enacting the fascism that is besetting your country.

Both task are Herculean and neither can be accomplished by me.

I have to agree with you on one thing though. Changing minds is a task that cannot be accomplished by you.

[Szuchow]

In that case, seeking to have the government enforce laws it clearly doesn't believe in would seem to be just as hard a task as changing the minds of folks who, after all, are the ones supporting the politicians enacting the fascism that is besetting your country.

Both task are Herculean and neither can be accomplished by me.

I have to agree with you on one thing though.  Changing minds is a task that cannot be accomplished by you.

Coming from someone not being failure of a human being it might have sting somewhat. Coming from person which said:

Oh, and yes I am content to support people like Hitler being allowed to speak freely it is just laughable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And you'd have no argument, because you will have already agreed that the government can decide what is and is not appropriate political expression.

No. I agreed that glorifying and promoting fascism should be illegal. But it matters not as even if would be proponent of freest speech imaginable gov wouldn't care about my arguments. 

That's the problem. Once you grant the government the power to determine what is and is not acceptable speech, you have no power to control what they do with that power. 

Glorifying democracy, and free speech, were both prosecuted under Article 58 in the old USSR, because said ideas were "counter-revolutionary", or "anti-Soviet." Controlling the expression of ideas is vital to the existence of any authoritarian government, which is why seizing telecommunications is usually the first act of any revolution.

I agree that we're at the point of simply restating our views, and so I'll leave off posting for now unless another angle comes up. I think we've wrung all the juice out of this lime.

[Deesse23]

My point was that without popular sentiment at hand, all the laws in the world are useless. It is therefore better to work at changing minds, in my view.

My point is that I prefer gov doing something about fascists instead of lounging about and leaving the dirty job of opposing totalitarian thought solely to citizens.

As for how these laws might effectively be enforced in the absence of popular support, I think we're going to see Tiananmen Square moments there. Because when the politicians promulgate laws that lack popular support, over time, I think what we see is further disrespect for law as a means for social control. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, but collapse it did. The people saw that the Constitutions of that state were largely window-dressing, still felt the hammer, and decided to be done with it. "L'etat, c'est moi" holds little weight with people going cold, or hungry, or dare I say persecuted for thinking outside the legal box. East Germany was the wealthiest Iron-Curtain state, per-capita, yet they pulled down the wall.

While fascists certainly don't like laws that targets them (and other people promoting totalitarianism) it's not like Poland populace have any inclination to violently rise in the defense of fascists. 

I don't see Germany as authoritarian, but I do disagree with the idea that laws forbidding NaZi expression have been all that successful, considering the late success of AfD. Those laws certainly kept NaZi thinking out of the public discourse, sure, but drove them underground, only to see them resurface lately.

Deesse23 who have greater knowledge on the subject of Germany than I begs to differ - http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid156969

Please let me restate, for the sake of clarity:

#1 Fascism is not prohibited in Germany. Being a fascist is not forbidden in Germany. Voicing your fascist views is not prohibited in Germany*
#2 Glorifying fascism is prohibited in Germany
#3 Displaying historic fascist signs and symbols other than for historic purposes is prohibited in Germany
#4 Parties are under observation and will be prohibited if they are unconstitutional or are promoting unconstitutional programs ("kill all jews" would be such a program)

*as i posted (in the meanwhile in Germany thread?) just recently: A court determined it is not slander to call the leader of "the wing" of the Afd, Björn Höcke a fascist, because there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt, from his own books and speeches that he is, in fact, a fascist. He is still campaigning as of today, and it is very likely that he and his "wing" will take over the AfD and make it into a new NSDAP. As long as he wont be caught in glorifying fascism, displaying nazi symbols or promoting unconstitutional ideas he will be able to continue to promote fascim on completely legal grounds.

The Afd as whole is not fascist or nazi. Its authoritatrian, exclsive, xenophobic, populistic, has ideas such as "Volksgemeinschaft", is anti immigration, but only a fringe group is actually near fascism. The "wing" under Björn Höcke. All this while other countries like Hungary or poland are far beyond that point in having goverments ruled by those groups who are either fascist/authoritarian themselves or are glorifying/promoiting such. Look at france and Le Pen etc.. Germany has the smallest problem of all EU countries i wold say. So i would like to turn around what Thump originally said and ask: "How is it that fascism and authoritarianism is so much lower in Germany than in other (european) countries?"

As fas as nazi thinking goes and them being underground: Until the emergence of the AfD, the number of votes for any fascist/nazi party (it was the NPD, before it got banned for being unconstitutional) was never above 5%, even after the war when all the original Nazis and their assorted groups were around. The number of members in any extremist nazi organisation is even lower. According to "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz":

By the end of 2015, right-wing extremist groups had a membership of approx. 22,600 in total, multiple memberships being deducted. So after years of decline, the right-wing extremist scene had again seen an increase in the number of followers.

What is right wing extremism?:

In terms of ideology, right-wing extremism in Germany is not a homogeneous movement but appears in various forms incorporating nationalist, racist and anti-Semitic ideology elements to different degrees and pursuing correspondingly different objectives. It is governed by the idea that belonging to a specific ethnic group, nation, or race determines a human being’s value. This right-wing extremist notion is fundamentally inconsistent with the Basic Law, where human dignity is the central value.

"Volksgemeinschaft"

Apart from such fragments of ideology, one feature common to almost all right-wing extremists is their concept of an authoritarian state, in which the state and the people – in their view an ethnically homogeneous group – merge into a unified whole within a supposedly natural order. According to this ideology of a Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), a National Socialist term for a community based on shared racial characteristics, the state leaders are supposed to intuitively act in accordance with the alleged unanimous will of the people. Starting from this premise, right-wing extremists believe that a state based on the right-wing extremist ideology can do without the essential control elements of the free democratic basic order, such as the people’s right to exercise state authority through elections, or the right to form and practise a parliamentary opposition.

As you can see, the german society, courts and legislative are well aware of the issues with free speech, where is starts and where it should end, based on the ideas of human rights and a society with as much freedom as possible, but also considering the experiences we made 1st hand with the implications of promoting hurtful ideas and hate through fascism.

When Israel designed their first homemeade post WWII battle tanks, everyone was paying attention and wondering why they went for a heavily armored vehicle, while the warsaw pact went for smaller mouch more nimble and less well armored tanks that "drove like Porsches". The answer to that is: The Israelis had the best and most recent first hand experience with modern tank warfare due to their "issues" with the arab world in the 50s and 60s.

Well, Germany had some first hand experience with rising fascism in the late 20s and 30s. Maybe, just maybe its worthwhile looking at what consequences it drew from this.