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

[Minimalist]

Laws are useless if they are not enforced.

[Szuchow]

If you look at hate speech as an opportunity for a teaching moment it's easier to sort things out.

If thousands of volumes about why nazism and totalitarianism in general is bad couldn't teach dumb fucks then hate speech is teaching opportunity in name only. If in 2019 someone isn't convinced that nazism was bad then such person is just piece of shit too dumb to even pity.

[Szuchow]

Laws are useless if they are not enforced.

Obviously. With poison spread so far they can't be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There isn't one probably but that does not mean that gov should not be allowed to censor nazis. I prefer state of things where nazis are censored and there is some (perhaps inevitable abuse) rather than state of things where there is abuse and nazis sometimes are "punished" with frowny faces from big brother.

I wouldn't give any government that power, myself. The ability to speak freely is the first defense against an authoritarian or corrupt government.

Only if said gov isn't smart enough to have it's own media. People speak against what happen here but authoritarian overtones of discourse, never properly punished took roots in society and speaking critically of gov is just derided.

Also courts (on which gov has undue influence) already are able to punish "nazi speech" or to use bill language "propagating of fascist or other totalitarian regime". It's just that there never was a political will to do it. 

To be clear - not everything that nazis say are punishable by law but there certainly is a law that could be used to silence them. To my regret it wasn't used when it could do some good and it isn't for obvious reasons used now. "Censoring" nazi fucks wouldn't necessitate giving new power to courts.

When they can define speech as "dangerous", the can define your speech as dangerous, too.

Why should I care? My speech is already defined as dangerous - quite a few years ago trashy if popular singer called Doda stand accused for saying that Bible must have been written under influence of drugs. As you can imagine knowing my views on religion I say much harsher things and what protect me is that I am no one known and thus no one worthy of being prosecuted. But the danger is very real if distant. Same was with the so called Holocaust bill - were I something else than random dude with opinion not liked by gov prosecution could had been my fate. So as things stand I would like to be a possibility of nazis being prosecuted for their speech.

I personally don't think speech should be punished unless it inflicts actual harm upon, or violates the rights of, another. I don't include being offended as a qualification for actual harm.

I think that calling for genocide, emptying the Poland of non whites, praising Hitler or other such things are far worse than merely offensive. To be clear - we aren't talking about people who say that nazi state had some upsides (KDF as one example). By allowing nazis to speak freely Poland ended in situation when PM praise nazi collaborators while visiting Germany (and offend Jews during the same visit), where symbol of anti fascism is decried as something that may offend catholics, where actions done by polish partisans that could be deemed genocidal aren't called such by using argumentation that there could be always more victims.

This is reality to which tolerating nationalists under the guise of free speech leads.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Stifling speech of any sort doesn't extinguish the sentiments -- but it usually makes supporters of an idea go underground for festering. Look at Germany, with its laws regarding supportive speech for the Third Reich. It's done little to aid stamping out the neofascists there, and indeed may have helped them cohere through the decades.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you look at hate speech as an opportunity for a teaching moment it's easier to sort things out.

If thousands of volumes about why nazism and totalitarianism in general is bad couldn't teach dumb fucks then hate speech is teaching opportunity in name only. If in 2019 someone isn't convinced that nazism was bad then such person is just piece of shit too dumb to even pity.

Okay, kill 'em all.

[Szuchow]

I wouldn't give any government that power, myself. The ability to speak freely is the first defense against an authoritarian or corrupt government.

Only if said gov isn't smart enough to have it's own media. People speak against what happen here but authoritarian overtones of discourse, never properly punished took roots in society and speaking critically of gov is just derided.

Also courts (on which gov has undue influence) already are able to punish "nazi speech" or to use bill language "propagating of fascist or other totalitarian regime". It's just that there never was a political will to do it. 

To be clear - not everything that nazis say are punishable by law but there certainly is a law that could be used to silence them. To my regret it wasn't used when it could do some good and it isn't for obvious reasons used now. "Censoring" nazi fucks wouldn't necessitate giving new power to courts.

When they can define speech as "dangerous", the can define your speech as dangerous, too.

Why should I care? My speech is already defined as dangerous - quite a few years ago trashy if popular singer called Doda stand accused for saying that Bible must have been written under influence of drugs. As you can imagine knowing my views on religion I say much harsher things and what protect me is that I am no one known and thus no one worthy of being prosecuted. But the danger is very real if distant. Same was with the so called Holocaust bill - were I something else than random dude with opinion not liked by gov prosecution could had been my fate. So as things stand I would like to be a possibility of nazis being prosecuted for their speech.

I personally don't think speech should be punished unless it inflicts actual harm upon, or violates the rights of, another. I don't include being offended as a qualification for actual harm.

I think that calling for genocide, emptying the Poland of non whites, praising Hitler or other such things are far worse than merely offensive. To be clear - we aren't talking about people who say that nazi state had some upsides (KDF as one example). By allowing nazis to speak freely Poland ended in situation when PM praise nazi collaborators while visiting Germany (and offend Jews during the same visit), where symbol of anti fascism is decried as something that may offend catholics, where actions done by polish partisans that could be deemed genocidal aren't called such by using argumentation that there could be always more victims.

This is reality to which tolerating nationalists under the guise of free speech leads.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Stifling speech of any sort doesn't extinguish the sentiments -- but it usually makes supporters of an idea go underground for festering. Look at Germany, with its laws regarding supportive speech for the Third Reich. It's done little to aid stamping out the neofascists there, and indeed may have helped them cohere through the decades.

I guess we will have.

Forgive me the repetition but I will just say that not stomping on these ideas resulted in polish PM praising nazi collaborators and polish Sejm approving bill that would absolve Poles of blame in killing Jews. It may be that trying to curb these ideas with help of the law would bring results just as bad but I do prefer action to inaction. More importantly I do not subscribe to idea that fascist have any right to spread their crap - just as one do not have right to steal, one does not have right to spread hatred under the guise of free speech.

[Szuchow]

If you look at hate speech as an opportunity for a teaching moment it's easier to sort things out.

If thousands of volumes about why nazism and totalitarianism in general is bad couldn't teach dumb fucks then hate speech is teaching opportunity in name only. If in 2019 someone isn't convinced that nazism was bad then such person is just piece of shit too dumb to even pity.

Okay, kill 'em all.

As PiS spokesperson said in reaction to attack on member of Commitee for Defence of Democracy - it shouldn't have happened but I understand why it did.

Or to say it plainly - I wouldn't lift a finger to help nazis if gov death squads were to come for them*.


*To call such unlikely is like to say that I probably won't date Katy Perry.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"A man should be able to kill his own dog."

[Szuchow]

"A man should be able to kill his own dog."

I don't have one. As for the answer to subtext I'm not interested in being jailed for killing some shitstains, nor I deem murder to be sensible solution. Fines and prison time however would be step in right direction.

[Minimalist]

Laws are useless if they are not enforced.

Obviously. With poison spread so far they can't be.

The other side of the coin is that you need to be careful what laws you write because you cannot always assume that the good guys will be in charge of enforcing them.

[Szuchow]

Laws are useless if they are not enforced.

Obviously. With poison spread so far they can't be.

The other side of the coin is that you need to be careful what laws you write because you cannot always assume that the good guys will be in charge of enforcing them.

In Poland far bigger problem is not enforcing laws. And it's not only about nazi scum.

[Minimalist]

Ireland did not begin to progress until they tossed the fucking church out on its ass.  Poland needs to learn that lesson.

[grympy]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

At this point in my life there is nothing for which I am willing to die. However, I have made my position on the freedom of speech clear on this forum before. 

You picture Hitler. Should he have been allowed to spew his doctrine of the Herren Volk and obsessive hatred of the Jews?  

It's easy in hindsight, to argue he should have been stopped. BUT at what point?   From the time he became  connected to the thuggish  brown shirts, or because of the contents  of his speeches?  Which one's? Once he became chancellor in 1933 ,it was too late.  

In Germany and Austria today it is a criminal offence to publicly deny the Holocaust 

I draw  the line at inciting to violence. However, I insist that the freedom of speech MUST include the freedom to offend . That is something  I will defend .  It is not a right I enjoy in my own country.

Another example; the odious  Westboro Baptist Church in the US.   THEIR hate speech has been ruled to be protected by the First Amendment . If they tried that  shit here, (protesting at the the funeral of a service person)  they would almost certainly be attacked  by irate mourners. 

The Westboro  Baptist Church was refused a  visa to enter  Australia, as was Holocaust Denier David Irving . 

Street preachers annoy me, so I walk around them 




 
"You're offended?  So fucking what "  Stephen Fry.

[grympy]

"A man should be able to kill his own dog."

 The implication is "for any reason by any means".  Bullshit.  

 Here a vet will not euthanise an animal without a very good reason .EG has viciously attacked a person (court order)   or is suffering and beyond help.

  I've had my last two dogs put down .Mimi the toy poodle was 17. She had a severe stroke. Shadow the Pit Bull was 13. He developed an aggressive tumour  in his stomach. I had him put down while he was still pain free,  just before he would have begun suffering terribly . On Vet's advice.

In practice, I think it's allowed here, but  you will be in deep shit if you are found to be  cruel to an animal.  It is an offence  here to bury a domestic pet in a suburban  back yard.  

YES, it's fairly expensive to have a dog euthanised and cremated . My position; if you can't afford to look after an animal,  don't have one. I don't care if it's a goldfish.

[Szuchow]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Frankly, this quote makes me angry. I do not see it as something about noble stand for persecuted but rather something like on the picture below: 


Standing for someone right to say unpopular things is good and all but somehow fascists end under protective umbrella of free speech too and in that case I would rather stand with "oppressors" than "brave, anti pc crowd, that just calls things how it sees it". My version of the quote would be - if you're fascist you have right to shut up.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this quote an example of good stance to take?

At this point in my life there is nothing for which I am willing to die. However, I have made my position on the freedom of speech clear on this forum before. 

You picture Hitler. Should he have been allowed to spew his doctrine of the Herren Volk and obsessive hatred of the Jews?  

It's easy in hindsight, to argue he should have been stopped. BUT at what point?   From the time he became  connected to the thuggish  brown shirts, or because of the contents  of his speeches?  Which one's? Once he became chancellor in 1933 ,it was too late.  

In Germany and Austria today it is a criminal offence to publicly deny the Holocaust 

I draw  the line at inciting to violence. However, I insist that the freedom of speech MUST include the freedom to offend . That is something  I will defend .  It is not a right I enjoy in my own country.

Another example; the odious  Westboro Baptist Church in the US.   THEIR hate speech has been ruled to be protected by the First Amendment . If they tried that  shit here, (protesting at the the funeral of a service person)  they would almost certainly be attacked  by irate mourners. 

The Westboro  Baptist Church was refused a  visa to enter  Australia, as was Holocaust Denier David Irving . 

Street preachers annoy me, so I walk around them 




 
"You're offended?  So fucking what "  Stephen Fry.

He shouldn't be allowed but it would suffice if he were given real punishment after his failed putsch instead of slap on the wrist. Look into Kershaw biography of Hitler to see how farcical trial was - Hitler was just given platform to spout his crap.

I don't see a problem with this law in both Germany and Austria.

Draw whatever lines you want - I do not subscribe to the idea that nazis and others of same ilk have any right to spread hatred. History lesson on this is clear and if Reich is not enough then look at sorry state of Poland and see to what tolerance toward nationalist and nazis led.

[SYZ]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

In 1906 Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote "The Friends of Voltaire", in which she said: "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs—and
which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself.

I'd have to say that your illustration depicting Hitler as the subject is an intentionally emotive one
intended to trigger a specific response (a variation on Godwin's law) which I can safely ignore.  
You say that the Hall quotation makes you angry, and that you don't see it as a noble stand for the
persecuted but rather something like that depicted by the picture below (of Hitler).

You're trying to make a generalised case about something—the freedom of expression—but using
an isolated, obviously negative specific case  to illustrate it.  And you're focussing your anger
—apparently—on fascism in particular, which doesn't exist as per its common definition in Western
countries  (or most other countries for that matter). The word "fascism", as you use it in this sense,
is itself a pejorative term.

So... generally speaking;  yes, I can and do agree with Hall's aphorism in the wider sense of its intent.

[Szuchow]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

In 1906 Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote "The Friends of Voltaire", in which she said: "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs—and
which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself.

I'd have to say that your illustration depicting Hitler as the subject is an intentionally emotive one
intended to trigger a specific response (a variation on Godwin's law) which I can safely ignore.  
You say that the Hall quotation makes you angry, and that you don't see it as a noble stand for the
persecuted but rather something like that depicted by the picture below (of Hitler).

You're trying to make a generalised case about something—the freedom of expression—but using
an isolated, obviously negative specific case  to illustrate it.  And you're focussing your anger
—apparently—on fascism in particular, which doesn't exist as per its common definition in Western
countries  (or most other countries for that matter). The word "fascism", as you use it in this sense,
is itself a pejorative term.

So... generally speaking;  yes, I can and do agree with Hall's aphorism in the wider sense of its intent.

 Obviously the picture is emotive one - it purpose was to show shadows behind allegedly noble sentiment. But feel free to ignore unpleasant truth under pretense of Godwin law. 

Also fascism may not exist in western countries but guess what? Poland ain't one and fascism of Griffin definition (palingenetic nationalism)  does exist here*.  I don't use this word in pejorative sense but rather descriptive one. 

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 

*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffin look for research section of the article, definition is there.

[Deesse23]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Stifling speech of any sort doesn't extinguish the sentiments -- but it usually makes supporters of an idea go underground for festering. Look at Germany, with its laws regarding supportive speech for the Third Reich. It's done little to aid stamping out the neofascists there, and indeed may have helped them cohere through the decades.

I beg to disagree. The amount of nazis/fascists/authoritarians in post war Germany always was lower than in many other european countries, many of whom actually were victims of german fascism. Just have a look at France and the Front National/Rassemblement National. I am not even talking of Spain which was a fascist state until the mid 70s or Portugal under Salazars dictatorship.

German (neo)fascists also arent very coherent, quite the opposite. They tend to cannibalize each other like the originals did. There always were and are in-fights. I dont see the german laws giving them (unintentionally) any support whatsoever. Until AfD, the brownshirts never had more than 5% votes (4.3% actually) in Germany. The very right wing of the Afd under Björn Höcke is actually getting the upper hand because of free speech. Höcke himself is a fascist as was confirmed by a court just recently, which stated that his very own speches and writings prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his ideology is fascist. Until 2014 Höcke was a teacher* with the status of a civil servant (= employed and paid by government), and his position is only "suspended" ever since. He has never been fired from being a civil servant because of his fascist agitation.

Re: supportive speech for the third reich
For the record: Its not illegal to be a nazi, its not illegal to vote for nazi parties (as long as they havent been judged to be unconstitutional, see NPD). Its illegal to glorify the nazi regime**. It is illegal to spread propaganda for unconstitutional parties and usage of their symbols. "Incitement of the masses (volk)" is also illegal according to famous §130.

Position of the supreme court:
Free speech can be limited, but only in general, not to suppress certain positions.
A lawyer and neo-nazi has appealed to supreme court, because only glorifying the nazi regime was illegal, and not glorifying all other totalitarian dictatorships. Supreme court argued that an exception can be made, because of germanys history and the terror, suffering and injustice german fascism has brought to the world. According to supreme court, nazi propaganda bears special risks being "an attack on the identity of the society as a whole, with potential to endanger peace. Statements marking the borderline to illegality and aggression" and lowering the inhibitions of its followers.
Supreme court then made clear that the contitution has no general anti-nazi principle which prohibits the mere spreading of extreme right ideas.

Its often been mentioned that free speech is 0/1 dichotomy, but while accepting this, i fail to see this being followed in praxi anywhere, including the US. The (in)famous person shouting "fire" in a theater is nothing else but speech. Its the responsibility of everyone else to make something out of it, or not. Yet its punishable, at least in parts of the US, correct? Same for libel and slander. Whats the fundamental difference between publicly slandering a single person or an entire population base don knowingly false information? When i am asking someone to kill my partner, i am only using my right of free speech, what the alleged killer is doing out of it is exactly his business not mine. I fail to see where mere speech is hurting anyone, but then any speech should not be punishable, inciting or not.

Sure §130 and german supreme courts interpretation limits the "ultimate" free speech, but so does every other law in any other country. The point of entry is just different.

tl;dr
Thats why i think free speech is a red herring and not desirable. Yes its a slippery slope, but we all are on that slope and have to check ourselves every day, thats the real challenge.
If people are spreading propaganda and are glorifying systems and ideologies that already have proven to bring harm to major parts of humanity, if not the whole globe, then i am willing to take the risk of making them punishable. Id rather risk a new kind of dystopia (a risk that hasnt materialized yet), than risking to bring old, well known  ones back.


*Ironically, Höcke is a west german, inciting eastern germany to neo-fascism
** and that is why Höcke and others are under investigation. Not for being fascist, but for glorifying fascism

[SYZ]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it etc...

Obviously the picture is emotive one - it purpose was to show shadows behind allegedly noble sentiment. But feel free to ignore unpleasant truth under pretence of Godwin law.

Using images of Hitler to make a point—any point—80 years down the socio-political path is pointless.  Get over the bloke FFS. 

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions.

"Fascist blackmail"?  Oh, puhleeze mate!  You're usually smarter than this.      

[Szuchow]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it etc...

Obviously the picture is emotive one - it purpose was to show shadows behind allegedly noble sentiment. But feel free to ignore unpleasant truth under pretence of Godwin law.

Using images of Hitler to make a point—any point—80 years down the socio-political path is pointless.  Get over the bloke FFS. 

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions.

"Fascist blackmail"?  Oh, puhleeze mate!  You're usually smarter than this.      

Considering the resurgence of far right using the image of Hitler is very much on point. 

As for fascist blackmail I'm smart enough to see things how they are. Shame you can't manage the same.

[Thumpalumpacus]

tl;dr
Thats why i think free speech is a red herring and not desirable. Yes its a slippery slope, but we all are on that slope and have to check ourselves every day, thats the real challenge.
If people are spreading propaganda and are glorifying systems and ideologies that already have proven to bring harm to major parts of humanity, if not the whole globe, then i am willing to take the risk of making them punishable. Id rather risk a new kind of dystopia (a risk that hasnt materialized yet), than risking to bring old, well known  ones back. 

I'd rather not risk it. It has a very poor track-record, which usually ends up with people imprisoned for disagreeing, on both sides of the ledger. We see this today in China, Russia, and many other places, so it's not really a "new" kind of dystopia.

When the government can legally define "spreading", "propaganda", "glorifying", and "ideology", we get shit like Tiananmen Square as well as Endlosungen. Even in the first ten years of the American nation, there were legal attempts to criminalize anti-government speech as the Alien and Sedition Act:

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalist-dominated 5th United States Congress and signed into law by President John Adams in 1798.[1][nb 1] They made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens who were deemed dangerous ("An Act Concerning Aliens", also known as the Alien Friends Act of 1798)[2] or who were from a hostile nation (Alien Enemy Act of 1798),[3] and criminalized making false statements that were critical of the federal government (Sedition Act of 1798).[4] The Alien Friends Act expired two years after its passage, and the Sedition Act expired on 3 March 1801, while the Naturalization Act and Alien Enemies Act had no expiration clause.

Sounds familiar, eh?

Even our cherished "forefathers" gave into the lure of political power, within twenty years of having won a war fighting against it. Governments should not be entrusted with the power to define legal and illegal speech. The lure of that power brings out the worst, even in the best.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 

I think this is an unfair representation of the reasoning of those who disagree with you. You're attributing motivations when you can't really know them.

[Deesse23]

Imo the conflict is to chose either between sticking to your ideal and thus allowing others to take it away, or "betraying" your principle to keep you safe from others taking it away. reminds me of "kingdom of heavens". When Baldwin and Balian meet, they play chess, and Baldwin reminds Balian, that he must stick to his principles, that he can not bend to others´ will, because saying "i only followed orders" will not suffice when he is going to meet his maker. Later Tiberias/Raimond and Sibylla ask him to agree to kill Guido and marry Sibylla. Balian rejects the offer to become king, knowing that this will lead to the destruction of the kindgom. He chose to uphold a principle knowing it will lead to others being able to destroy the framework which provides the foundation for this principle. My mileage varies on this.

Still, as i already have said, why not allow libel, slander or shouting "fire" in a theater? Speech is either free or not, period.

With reference to China and Russia:
I think the comparisons arent apt. What peopel like Szuchow and me (sometimes not so) humble self is to not let people come to power in the first place, people who have ideas that are harmful because they already and always have in history. I doubt that Putin or the chinese communists (or whatever they are or pitcure themslves) ever had "good intentions". Their intentions are to have unquestionable rule, and i would prefer to let people like this not spread their venom in the first pleace. They arent just people with good intnetions being misled.

I agree howeve with the general argument that (even) good people can be misled, and thats why i said we have to constantly keep paying attention to the issue of (free) speech, no matter what.

[Deesse23]

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 

I think this is an unfair representation of the reasoning of those who disagree with you. You're attributing motivations when you can't really know them.

Comrade Cat is probably very frustrated and feeling powerless in the face of current events in and around Poland. He (we, EUs) are also living in an environment that has already experienced the horrors of what happens when you uphold the principle of free speech giving not-so-noble groups the playing field to install their dystopian rulerships.

Free speech wont shield you from people who dont give a damn about free speech and truth, who dont care to spread lies and propaganda. That is what is possibly currently happening in the US. To be more blatanty: Are you willing to uphold free speech if it will end up in a mix of christian theocracy and oligarchy of nepotist and corrupt billionaires? Once they have a majority they bend the rules (as they are currently trying to, a la 1984) and you end up being the minority being marginalized, criminalized, prosecuted and ultimately killed.

I dont think our positions arent much differnt or one is less dangerous, we just chose different risks.

[Szuchow]

Generally speaking I see this quote as pinnacle of naivety and surrender to fascist blackmail stating that all kind of shit should be possible to say without repercussions. 

I think this is an unfair representation of the reasoning of those who disagree with you. You're attributing motivations when you can't really know them.

Perhaps, but this is how I see it.