Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech

[JohnBrown1917]

Who called for genocide?

The nazi ideology, you should read a book about WWII.

- - - Updated - - -

"you guys"?

You guys.


10ch

[Dark-Zarupia]

Yet terrorists and Muslim extremists have free speech, but hey nothing is worse then a nazi..

[Rasulis]

Looking at all those armed militias, for some reason the first thought that came into my mind was “Did they buy their boots at the same place?” I actually own a pair of steel-toed faux leather work boots that looks exactly like that.

Getting back to the subject on hand. The Flat Earth Society deserved to have all the free speech in the world. The NAZI/KKK white nationalist, not so much.

What the hell does “Jews will not replace us” meant anyway?

[Deleted]

The nazi ideology, you should read a book about WWII.

If they wanted genocide then why did they allow millions of jews to emigrate to Israel?
I mean the nazis were scum, but they mainly wanted the jews to go away.

[zorkuus]

What the hell does “Jews will not replace us” meant anyway?

They're afraid Jews will outbreed them because they're single basement dwellers.

[Jshadowhunter]

The communists here did not have gulags.

It was a rhetorical statement.

[GennGreymane]

They're afraid Jews will outbreed them because they're single basement dwellers.

Nah, its because I am an evil reptilian and I will replace them with I dunno... I need to ask brother Soros of the Illuminati board of who I replace them with.

[Machismo]

I'm wondering where all these freedom advocates were at when there was the push to limit immigration. I guess they only care about freedom for some people.

[Sama-81]

No, there is nothing really wrong with communism.
I don't agree with the ideology because they have some facepalm-worthy economical ideas.
But the ideology doesn't promote genocide.

In fact, the communists here helped us to fight against the Nazi's. You're from America I bet, so I would be arguing against 70 years of brainwash, so nevermind.

Yes, it does indeed promote systemic mass murder, in fact it's a necessity for communism to ever come into effect. Not to mention being upheld. That they don't attack a group based on ethnicity, is NOT extenuating that fact. And it doesn't really matter if he's from America, only a minimal fraction of Europeans would even dream of defending communism against accusations of being a murderous ideology. We have seen enough, to know how it unvariably unfolds (and it's experience that makes us equate it with nazism, not ideology, even if that would do as well). One can always call the communist states of past faux-communism, but since every new attempt would be as well, that point is entirely moot.

[zorkuus]

I'm wondering where all these freedom advocates were at when there was the push to limit immigration. I guess they only care about freedom for some people.

There's two amandments in the constitution. Neither say anything about immigration.

[Machismo]

There's two amandments in the constitution. Neither say anything about immigration.

There's a few more than two.

[minteK917]

No, communism controls peoples lives directly. You get limitations to your life. Equality at the cost of freedom. And then usually it all goes to hell and people die :P

Huh you realize you could be Anarcho-Communism, which means there is no form of control at all? Like a couple of the nomad native Americans where in the past, simply sharing everything with everyone out of cooperation. Its still communism. What you describe is authority. Communism is the opposite of capitalism as an economical system, both have their drawback, neither can be responsible of any deaths, both can be lead by an authority that holds everyone lives as hostages or not.

[zealo]

Free speech does not protect you from others having opinions about what you're saying, only the government.

As long as the government isn't making moves towards arresting you for having an opinion you still have free speech.

[Cooper]

And that's exactly where i think most of the argument is about. If it incites violence it is forbidden. That's already a tiny restriction on the freedom of speech. The descision is with the people we invest our power to. So they already have the power to limit free speech when they deem it. The question for me in this case: Do you trust the people with this power?

No, not just when they "deem" it. As of right now, the government (at least in the U.S.) must pass a very stringent set of requirements before somebody's right to free speech can be impinged. The decision is not with the people, but in the law, and the number of instances in which restricting somebody's freedom of speech would be lawfully permissible are extremely limited.

When you start trying to make exceptions - real exceptions, not just "yelling fire in a crowded theatre", but start dictating which ideas are and are not permissible to communicate - then you've got a serious problem on your hands, because people will attempt to manipulate those exceptions to fit their own agenda. There's a reason free speech is one of the first things to go in authoritarian regimes - because ideas are the greatest danger to those in power.

The judiciary branch is the ones arresting you and deciding who can have those permit. You can trust them more then executive or legislative branch in most cases.

Incorrect. Law enforcement fulls under the executive branch - the Department of Justice, for example, answers to the President. A criminal case is tried by the Judicial branch. This is the whole separation of powers thing at work. You don't want the people who arrest you to also be the ones to try you.

[zorkuus]

There's a few more than two.

It was in jest (duh) because the freedom lovers usually only seem to care about the first two.

[GennGreymane]

Anyone see some irony that there was a free speech rally and it was allowed to exist because free speech exists?

- - - Updated - - -

There's two amandments in the constitution. Neither say anything about immigration.

The third is personally my favorite.

[Machismo]

It was in jest (duh) because the freedom lovers usually only seem to care about the first two.

I apologize. In retrospect, that was quite funny. Sadly, it is also true.

[JohnBrown1917]

Here is a book you should consider reading:

[IMG]http://llco.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fc0674076087-1.jpg[IMG]

For what reason?

[Xandrigity]

You know, we could sit here and debate what could have been or could happen. Or we can look at what actually happens when a country gous full reta....sorry, full socialsm.

I dunno I'm kinda enjoying watching the left go full nutjob. Trump getting elected is the gift that giving.

[JohnBrown1917]

If they wanted genocide then why did they allow millions of jews to emigrate to Israel?
I mean the nazis were scum, but they mainly wanted the jews to go away.

You're acteally saying Hitler and his ilk did not want to commit genocide on the jews/blacks/gays?