concordtom said:BearGoggles said:A government body should do nothing. Absolutely nothing. That is literally the point of the first amendment (again, with the exclusions of mentioned for defamation, fraud, etc.).concordtom said:BearGoggles said:These are a bunch of a strawman.concordtom said:Cal88 said:calpoly said:Why can you not answer the question in your own words.Cal88 said:
These are good places to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
My answer went over your head, over Tom's head, and over every head that cannot process the fact that reducing speech you don't like or approve of to nazism is ridiculously narrow-minded and constitutes a prime example of reductio ad hitlerum.
Screw you.
It's a simple question - was Nazi propaganda or Rwanda radio okay?
Do you believe all speech is free speech that should be legally allowed???
I'm asking YOU, not looking for a thesis.
Nazi propaganda or Rwanda radio is not "okay" - but it is legal. The question is what do we do when there's speech we don't like? Authoritarians seek to censor it. The US tradition is more speech. That tradition is based on the First Amendment - which was first for a reason.
Even hate speech is in fact legal. In the US, you can be a nazi or communist. It is protected to advocate for those causes absent an immediate call to violence.
And no one is claiming "all" speech is free speech. We have recognized limits. There are defamation/libel laws. In the business context, you can be sued for fraud if you make false statements. There are in many cases mandatory disclosures imposed by laws (e.g., political adds or medical labels) - but those are content neutral and apply generally. It is illegal to incite violence - but the standard is very high to prove that speech was in fact incitement.
The link below explains all of this.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-synopsis#:~:text=Incitement%20%E2%80%94%20speech%20that%20is%20both,unprotected%20by%20the%20First%20Amendment.
Okay. I recognize. You did say Goebbels and Rwanda were not "okay".
So then I ask you, what does a govt body do yo stop that type of situation from happening again?
We, as citizens (and the advocacy groups we form), should do a lot to oppose that type of hate. We should speak against it. We should persuade and explain why it is dangerous and false. We should expose the lies behind it.
But the government should not have a role in that because if you give the government that power, inevitably the government will censor political speech it does not like. Given that power, politicians (from both parties) will attempt to suppress policy discussions they oppose.
Faucci and other government officials in the Trump/Biden admins (both) literally did that. They pressured social media companies to censor information and arguments that, in hindsight, were 100% correct (e.g., when people posted that people would get covid after being vaxed).
You have not answered my question - why on earth would you want Trump (if he wins) to have that type of power? Given your worldview which I think can be fairly characterized as progressive, why would you trust any republican to potentially have that kind of power. Regardless of Trump/2024, at some point there will be a republican president/governor/mayor/etc. Why would you want any of them to have that type of power?
Citizens grant their government with far greater power than free speech! For example, military power. Or legal power to jail citizens.
We do so because we trust them to wield that power fairly.
Goi g ba k to the top of your response where you say a govt should do nothing… if a citizen is being harassed by the kkk with burning crosses on their lawn, do we expect govt to do nothing, as you say?
Your logic is …. I disagree with it.
You say, "one day there will be a Republican, do you want to give them that power?"
I want govt to help establish norms of behavior as previously stated in all other arenas (construction regulations, food labels, driving safely laws, etc.). I expect that without such rules, life is not as good. This is why we have government at all. Anarchy and free willing it Wild West is not as good. Free speech is not separate from snake oil. You can't just sell or say whatever. There are boundaries to be respected.
You're lost in ideals.
If we are so afraid of one party over exercising its power, then let's take away all of its power. No armies. No Police. No judges.
No. We trust they will execute their powers within the established bounds. Same as with speech.
It's a hard thing to govern, because intonation flips meaning. A wink. A smile turns straight talk into sarcasm.
We know it when we see it.
People do not have a free pass to incite riots at the Capitol against the certification of a free and fair election.
Go to jail, Mr Trump.
Your thinking is clouded by your politics. Harassment (i.e., threatening a person) and/or burning a cross on a person's lawn (i.e., property damage) is not speech. If you do those things, it is illegal regardless of the content of the speech or intended message. In contrast, if some idiot wants to march around with a racist sign or other awful message, they can do that under the First Amendment. You have the right to be awful and hate speech is not illegal.
By your standards, quite a few of the pro-hamas protesters should be arrested - because there is no doubt they are harassing (and with their words overtly threatening) lots of people. Yet you and the left have nothing to say about censoring that.
I'm not lost in details - I'm focused on overriding principles and preserving liberty/democracy.
Here is a video on a government "enforcing norms." If this doesn't frighten you, then your are simply an authoritarian drunk on the mistaken belief that the "government" won't come for you at some point.
A new law in Scotland threatens you with seven years in JAIL if you misgender someone.
— John Stossel (@JohnStossel) September 7, 2024
GLAD @jk_rowling calls this a threat to free speech.
Here is how she protested: pic.twitter.com/hIbZby4OVX
