^^This

no, of course it cannot. My point is to illustrate the futility and folly of hate speech legislation. The answer to hate speech is not to shut them down (less speech), it's to let them speak (more speech). That way we know who, what, where, when and why these people do what they do.

@IamBane
I see. I would disagree that either is a solution in any sense. But I see your point.

yep!

You have a legal right to say whatever you want in the US. That law doesn't mean that you are barred from the repercussions of that speech. You can be judged by the public, you can lose your job, you can be shunned by people you know, just because you can legally say hate filled things, doesn't mean the public at large has to roll with it.

YES. we already limit speech based on danger to society. we already do that. the only question is "is this speech dangerous". that's the only consideration, and if the answer is yes then the solution is "limit it".

WRONG!...do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars

u got it! MOOOOOOOOORE speech is always the answer!

@irascible I was implying you educate people first and hopefully prevent some of them from getting unhinged in the first place.
Unfortunately the powers that be don't really want an educated reasoning populous, because they would see them for the crooks they are, hey want angry sheeple.

The trouble is that it is hard to tell someone else to grow up, as if they have not grown up they can not posibly understand what you mean.

@Fernapple like anything else, it has to start somewhere somehow

@IamNobody Agreed. But it is a hard task you have set yourself: best of luck.

@Fernapple Change comes from within..... I meant we all need to start that change from ourselves

@IamNobody Yes that was my point too, yet for some it never seems to come. When we were babies we were at the centre of our parents world and our needs the only thing that mattered, and that was how we saw the world. One of the main points about growing up, is to understand emotionally as well as rationally, that we are not the centre of the universe after all and that our needs are not the most important things the rest of the planet has to deal with. It is too easy to fall into the trap laid by churches, politicians, commercial sales and the media who will all tell us that we can remain the most important thing at the centre of the universe, if we go along with them. (They call him 'God the Father' after all). Perhaps the worlds biggest industry is the business of keeping people infantile so that they can be used like child slaves. This is why people get angry when their irrational beliefs are challenged, it is because you are asking them to grow up and accept that they are not the centre of everything.

@Fernapple you are still missing the point. It's not about mapping this thought into anyone external but the one self. I know I cannot control someone else but me. Now, trying to lead by example, this is my last comment. Feel free to reply if you like but I won't. I have made my point, you have too. Moving on to the next topic.

unless you can teach critical thinking to everyone currently living in the next 24 hours, then the question of what we should allow exposure to is still valid.

yes, education, but education doesn't answer "what about tomorrow".

@HereticSin agreed. I think I'm pretty good at long range, big picture stuff, so I hang out there and let other ppl worry about the more immediate, granular side of things. I'm fine with it.

@stinkeye_a this is the most honest thing I've seen on this thread.

you handle the future, I'll worry about today, and maybe together we can have a Nazi free future!

@HereticSin whenever I can, I try to destigmatize and normalize unflinching honesty--especially as it relates to our own faults or weaknesses. If there's one thing I know, it's how much I don't.

@Wellspring That isn't hate speech.

it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. this country has never had "unlimited" free speech. no right in the constitution has ever been "without limit".

a citizen's freedom ends at the point where another citizen's freedoms begin, this is axiomatic. you have the right to wave your arms around anywhere you want, right up til the end of my nose.

There is free speech and there are also consequences for exercising free speech.

@HereticSin I believe the OP statement was about "hate" speech, not yelling alarming remarks in public and my comments are directed to that subject.

@jlynn37 if you believe that free speech has limits, then the conversation is about which limits you agree with, not whether you think their should be any.

@HereticSin I am just responding to the OP, nothing more. Just my opinion on the OP's statement. Your opinion will vary I am certain and I take no issue with it.

@GuyKeith Boom: that's what im talking about!

@jlynn37 you brought up free speech, the OP didn't. don't lie.

@jlynn37 I responded to what you brought up.

if your answer is based on "free speech", then my response is based on your argument, and not addressing MY answer is intellectually dishonest.

if you want to address the OP without resort to conditions, then do that, but you get one from column a OR one from column b, you don't get both.

@HereticSin Whatever you think my friend. Your opinion is noted as is mine. It isn't worth pursuing a far as I am concerned.

@jlynn37 I know. addressing my response to your argument isn't worth pursuing, because then you have to rationally address your argument, and that isn't possible.

no mercy.

The SCOTUS case that gave rise to the quote about shouting "fire" in a theater was a horrible decision that held that speech opposing the draft during World War I was not protected by the First Amendment. Fortunately I that decision was largely overturned in 1969. The current standard is that only speech that's directed to and likely to cause imminent lawless action (rioting, for example) can be prohibited.

@cmadler "fortunately". that ruling made Nazi rallies acceptable. I differ in my opinion of "fortunately".

@jorj "is subjective" so causing emotional harm isn't a problem because if it doesn't emotionally harm me, I can ignore the FACT that it emotionally harms someone else? yeah, lack of empathy is a real good excuse, I guess.

apologetics for Nazis is Nazy sympathizer.

@jorj "well, it didn't bother me, so that other person's suffering is okay".

that IS NOW YOUR ARGUMENT

"offensive"

"go home niggers"

yeah, those are the same, keep telling yourself that.

yes. yes. yes. yes.....@HereticSin is SO lost, albeit, smart, he has no clue....A clue he has not!

"more hate speech".

if you think "I hate Nazis" is equal to "I hate Jews", you're an idiot.

All Jews should die.

"I respectfully disagree, Jews are simply one of many ethnic and social groups in human diversity, and deserve equal respect"

No they don't.

"I respectfully disagree, they are historically a large component of our system and development"

Showers and Ovens.

"I respectfully disagree, you are annhiliating an entire ethnic group on false assumptions"

Final Solution.

"I respectfully disagree".

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

@HereticSin The two are not equal. I would definitely take the side of the Jews rather than the side of the Nazis.

@jorj "exactly the same"

I hate this person because of who they are, and want to exterminate them.

I hate this person for wanting to kill other people.

exactly the same.

no, wrong, just not correct.

@jorj that's like saying killing someone for trying to kill you is the same as them killing you for being alive. it's false. every human being on the planet understands "self defense"

@jorj "offensive" "demonstrably detrimental to society"

sure, keep acting like those are the same thing.

@jorj people are offended by vulgar language. minorities are harmed by the prevalence of hateful ideology in society. "basically the same thing". that's your current argument, congratulations.

@jorj "it is all subjective" moral relativism thinks Nazi ideology is equal to the philosophy that everyone is equal. sure, it's subjective, but you either think one or the other.

"actual physical harm" if Nazis take over, there will be harm.

"your reading comprehension" you are the one who can't answer a binary, but sure, tell your story how you like it.

"your emotions" oh, shit, I'm angry about Nazis in my streets, how horrible.

"losing the talks" again, not one of you can answer the binary, so you can talk about me losing all you want.

@jorj quoting you "I hate Nazis is exactly the same s I hate Jews". hating someone for being Jewish and hating someone for wanting to exterminate minorities is exactly the same, that's your argument.

that is an exact quote.

@jorj If I said "hating someone for trying to kill women and hating women is exactly the same", would you agree?

how about "hating someone for wanting to kill jorj just for being alive and hating jorj are exactly the same thing, and we should tolerate them both"? you don't want me to feel a need to stop the person who wants to kill you for being alive? you want me to let them preach that to impressionable children?

@jorj and so now you suggest that the reason doesn't matter.

okay, then killing in self defense no different than murder, because the reason doesn't matter. that's your new argument.

@jorj it is hate, you aren't wrong. I hate Nazis. if you ignore the reasons, then it's all equal.

moral relativism is a great copout, but if you are truly morally relativistic, then you wouldn't care that I hate Nazis, and wouldn't be arguing the point, would you? I mean, if all morals are equal, you would just accept that mine are as valid as everyone elses, right? lying fuck.

@jorj a group of jews promoting "let's kill those guys whose entire existence is a threat to ours"? yes, I would say they are justified. that's what self defense means. is that tricky for you?

if the Jews had killed the Nazis in Germany, would that have been worse, the same, or better than the innocent people being gassed?

"because you choose a side". yes. a guy is standing there being <what he is intrinsically>. call it black, Jew, gay, whatever, he's not doing anything to anyone, just BEING that thing.

another guy comes along and says "I want to kill that guy just for being that thing".

I can either say "yeah, cool, go ahead" or I can say "no, that's shitty" or I can agree with him. those are the choices.

"Not about to defend a Nazi" you are. "Let the Nazis speak in public and recruit on college campuses" IS DEFENDING THEM

@jorj okay, then just say you are okay with Nazis, and stop trying to act like that's not what you are saying.

@jorj "I'm not a Jew, so Nazis wanting to exterminate Jews is okay with me".

great. fine. just admit it.

so, you aren't going to admit it, or you are?

@jorj "he used bad words, I'll pretend that is an excuse not to respond to the argument"

sure thing, that's honest.

@jorj Nazis, given power, try to kill. that's the point of stopping them.

@jorj "wanting to kill someone for trying to kill Jews is the same as them wanting to kill Jews".

but yeah, I'm the one making a false equivalency, sure thing.

@jorj if reasons don't matter, then the US army was just as horrible as the German army in WW2, they both killed enemy soldiers to further their own agenda.

@jorj if reasons don't matter, self defense is assault, and should be convicted.

@jorj but oh, no, those are "different", because you want reasons to matter in those cases, and in this one you don't, right?

@jorj "self defense is a response to an action". I agree.

the response to Nazi rallies is self defense. unless you don't think they are a threat. self defense is a response to a threat.

"Nazi rallies are okay" is the only way you can justify not wanting to stop them.

@jorj WOOOOOOOOW!.....hard to argue with that!....valid and sound logic!

@jorj yes, that's exactly why he'll win in 2020...That's the problem: I know when to shut-up and call it a day: these folks DON"T

@jorj I would not say, "I hate Nazis." I would disagree with their agenda, resist it, and even fight against it. But if a Nazi is willing to talk rationally, I would gladly sit down with him and expose him to some ethical reasoning.

In other words, it is not the person I hate, it is the agenda that I resist. The person may just be ignorant rather than malicious. He might be under a bad influence. If I can help the person to think ethically, I will do so.

@BestWithoutGods or expose that he has NONE...how else would u know????

@IamBane If a person calls himself a Nazi, but does not act on the Nazi agenda (Is that what you mean by your question?), I would like to enlighten him to the fact that calling himself a Nazi makes people THINK he has the same agenda as other Nazis, and will act on it. It gives him a bad reputation.

Every morning I ride my bike down a certain street on my way to the park to get some exercize. Two houses on that street fly a Confederate flag. I have spoken to people in the past who wear Confederate flags on their hats, or have them on their license plates. They claim that it has nothing to do with the 19th Century Confederacy, but with today's Southern states, and they are only expressing pride in where they live.

However, when rational people see that flag, it causes them to think of racism, white supremacy and slavery, which was the whole reason for the existence of the Confederacy in the first place.

So, when I pass those flags on my bike, I give them a thumbs down and say, "No racism! No white supremacy! No slavery! No Confederacy!" I am not protesting the people who live in those houses, but the Confederate agenda. They have their freedom of speech, and are legally able to fly that flag. But I also have freedom of speech. If they are going to protest against "liberty and justice for all," I have the freedom to protest in favor of it. Neither of us is doing physical harm to others. (However, their African American neighbors may feel intimidated.)

The people who live in those houses have not shot me off my bike (yet), and I have not done them any harm either. I do not even know the people. They may be ignorant rather than malicious. It is possible, though, that they are among the KKK group in our town. I just don't know. But they need to know that there are people who object to the racism that the Confederate flag represents.

"it also protects" no, that's an interpretation, not a true thing.

there is nothing in the first amendment that allows you to limit defamation of character, but we accept those laws.

yes they are!....the scotus aggress BTW

@IamBane "the scotus agrees"

the scotus can re-interpret. acting like precedent is an end all be all is a complete lack of understanding of how law changes. the SCOTUS agreed that separate but equal was legit in the 40s, we going to go with that, too?

@IamBane "it's the law" was the justification Nazis used. and people wonder why I keep bringing up Nazis...

"it's legal" is not a justification moral people use for "right".

"it's right" is a justification moral people use for the law.

unless you didn't know that SCOTUS interpretation is subject to change? did you know that? did you know that "scotus decided" is subject to change, or didn't you?

the solution to fascism is not rational speech. that has never worked.

@Morganfreeman I dont' think all haters buy into Fascism totally... or realize that they are helping move society in that direction.

So, apparently you are in favor of hate speech and feel that it has something to contribute to dialogue. If that is so, you are not a person I want to know.