Neo-Nazi gets punched in the face while handing out racist fliers at campus

[Super Kami Dende]

Your post history is public.

No reason to cower in a corner champ, own the shit you believe.

I do own the shit I believe, 90% of my political stances are "Left". 10% are considered "Right".

If that makes me a Right Winger that is pretty hilarious.

[Mehrunes]

You need to open up a book.

You mean a book saying that appeasement was a policy of appeasing Nazis in order to deescalate the political situation to avoid war? Is bending over a synonym of opposition in dutch and you just got confused by English sharing the same word but applying a different meaning to it? Because if not, that's some top notch opposition you got there. And reading skills. It's only in the fucking name.

[Mormolyce]

Uh...are you for real?

So, in your mind, punching someone in the face is allowing them to speak? How do arrive at that conclusion?

It has nothing to do with your right to free speech, no. It's assault.

That's why you can't take someone to court over a punch on the grounds of a free speech violation.

You know what free speech is, right? It ensures the government can't throw you in jail for what you say. That has no relevance here.

If the government arrested this man for distributing the fliers, then we're talking about free speech. At least in the US, where that kind of thing is protected. In some other countries it isn't (notably Germany).

[Garnier Fructis]

@ OP: He got punched Reich in the face.

[OrcsRLame]

Unless it was the government punching him in the face...his right to free speech was never violated.

The issue I have with this often repeated line is that the method used to take away freedom of speech isn't usually direct censorship from the government. Totalitarian governments use the citizens to police themselves. It's like in 1984, during that part where the one guy is talking about how the Party has never done a single thing that the people didn't ask for.

The argument that it's okay because someone's right to speak was not suppressed by the government simply doesn't hold water for me.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a pacifist that believes violence is only ever justified in response to a direct threat, to defend yourself or someone else. Something something to a dark place something something line of thought.

[Mormolyce]

if it is used to silence someones ability to speak it is in effect a violation of free speech as the end results are the same.

Irrelevant.

Which, unless Hydra is real, is rather unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Hopefully so.

[Wells]

The issue I have with this often repeated line is that the method used to take away freedom of speech isn't usually direct censorship from the government. Totalitarian governments use the citizens to police themselves. It's like in 1984, during that part where the one guy is talking about how the Party has never done a single thing that the people didn't ask for.

The argument that it's okay because someone's right to speak was not suppressed by the government simply doesn't hold water for me.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just a pacifist that believes violence is only ever justified in response to a direct threat, to defend yourself or someone else. Something something to a dark place something something line of thought.

Oh come off it. A society wanting nothing to do with Nazis isn't the next coming of The Party.

[Xeones]

maybe in a strictly technical sense but in any practical way dose it actually matter WHO uses violence to stop you from saying what you want? i mean if you put up a pro trump/hillary sign on your lawn and the guy across the street beats you up for it is that significantly different then a cop doing it? sure the government has a greater ability to harm on a larger scale but the individual impact is similar.

Yes it is significantly different. When the guy across the street does it you have protection in the form of law enforcement to deal with the suituation. When the police start doing it you're fucked.

[Super Kami Dende]

Because being a Nazi is just "disagreeing"...
I wonder if you'd extend this whitewashing to other extremists?

I like how you chose to disregard me calling him a piece of shit as well. But yes continue your drivel.

Also "Whitewashing" lol? What the fuck are you babbling about.

[OrcsRLame]

Because being a Nazi is just "disagreeing"...
I wonder if you'd extend this whitewashing to other extremists?

I would!

This is how I view things, just so we're clear.

Nazi saying dumb shit = don't engage in violence. Mock them if you want, argue with them if you think it'll do some good, but no touchy.

Nazi attacking people = kill them.

Muslim Imam preaching death to America = don't engage in violence. Mock them if you want, argue with them if you think it'll do some good, but no touchy.

Muslim attacking people = kill them.

Notice also how I don't believe in an in between. You either don't engage in violence, or you shoot to kill.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh come off it. A society wanting nothing to do with Nazis isn't the next coming of The Party.

Never said it was. I wasn't even talking about Nazis actually. I was responding to the sentiment that freedom of speech can only be taken away by the government. I don't think that's true and I think it's dangerous to believe that.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Again..This is just a Dick fucking an Asshole and Pussies getting mad about it.
Team America FTW

[Tijuana]

It has nothing to do with your right to free speech, no. It's assault.

That's why you can't take someone to court over a punch on the grounds of a free speech violation.

You know what free speech is, right? It ensures the government can't throw you in jail for what you say. That has no relevance here.

If the government arrested this man for distributing the fliers, then we're talking about free speech. At least in the US, where that kind of thing is protected. In some other countries it isn't (notably Germany).

I understand the legal hair you are splitting. I'm making the case that maybe, just maybe, we should personally apply our own morality, to the behavior of ourselves. This is not a free speech legal issue. The nazi was allowed to speak by public entities. The only issue there even is to debate, is the morality of the assailant, which I find lacking above and beyond the assault.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd generally I'd agree but as it stands there's certain things I won't really defend or rather not really exert any sort of effort to defend. Like nazi's getting punched. If it happens a big meh from me. When people who aren't expressing violent ideals are getting assaulted call me up and I'll defend them regardless of my disagreements with them.

Not everyone believes in free speech. Nobody can make you believe in it. /shrug

I personally would defend the nazi, on the basis of both law and order, and the morality of free speech. And when I was done, I would tell him his views suck, and he sucks for having them.

- - - Updated - - -

And what values would those be?

Free speech. If you don't believe in the core tenet of Liberalism, then you are in fact, not a Liberal.

[TITAN308]

I personally would defend the nazi, on the basis of both law and order, and the morality of free speech. And when I was done, I would tell him his views suck, and he sucks for having them.

Oh boy you did it now. Prepare for more twisting than a bag of twizzlers.

*hands you a Kevlar helmet*

[Mehrunes]

And in 100 years who knows what monstrosities our great grandchildren will think us guilty of. The point being that contemporarily liberal societies that have thought themselves above base totalitarianism have given way to such practices in rapid order before and we'd be fools to think we're immune to the same now.

It's still an atrocious example and "what will our great grandchildren think us guilty of" hardly salvages it. German Empire was actively engaging in ethnic cleansing at the time and was in spitting distance of the Third Reich despite of what the coddled elite thought themselves to be. Sure, our great grandchildren will give us shit for destabilizing the Middle East and whatnot. But that is hardly a reply to what you quoted, i.e. "As a society we are so elevated above that I'll downright say its near impossible for Nazis to rise to any sort of power". The difference between things we will be criticized for in the future and Nazis is not even in the same ballpark as the difference between Second and Third Reich. Doesn't mean we're immune. But we're not remotely as close as the German Empire was.

[Xeones]

I personally would defend the nazi, on the basis of both law and order, and the morality of free speech. And when I was done, I would tell him his views suck, and he sucks for having them.

I'm sure your chastisement will cause him to totally rethink support for the extermination of billions of people.

[TITAN308]

I'm sure your chastisement will cause him to totally rethink support for the extermination of billions of people.

Devils Advocate: And a punch will? Or will it you know... fuel their hatred and expand it?

[Imnick]

Make nazis afraid again

[Edge-]

Devils Advocate: And a punch will? Or will it you know... fuel their hatred and expand it?

Well, force is the only thing that the Nazi's listened to last time. So why not give it another go? : D

[kail]

so all the people who fought in world war 2 are stupid? okay bro

You think we are still in WW2? Or did WW3 already happen and I missed the memo?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, force is the only thing that the Nazi's listened to last time. So why not give it another go? : D

Bacause laws and civility and such.

[Darkeon]

Well, force is the only thing that the Nazi's listened to last time. So why not give it another go? : D

I'm interested to hear how you would deal with Muslims.

It's okay, you can lie. Don't anger your masters!