NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not quite sure I understand why free speech is held so sacred in our society. I agree that it should be legal to complain about the government etcetera but what about the groups which are basically hate groups, like Nazis or the crazy religious fundamentalists? The main argument against outlawing groups such as these I see is the "slippery slope" argument, where outlawing certain groups is a step to dictatorship. Personally, I find this to be a flawed argument as it can be applied to almost anything to make it sound bad. Extremist hate groups contribute nothing beneficial to society, and all they do is spread, well, hate. A desire to exterminate a certain demographic of people should not be tolerated in our society. I would feel much more comfortable if all Nazis were locked up in nice, padded cells.
My short post is done.
*grip tightens on fire extinguisher*

I would feel much more comfortable if all Nazis were locked up in nice, padded cells.
I forgot, are we talking about free speach or the Third Reich?

I forgot, are we talking about free speach or the Third Reich?

Just using Nazis as an example here, since they seem to get the most media coverage about how they hold angry rallies in cities :rolleyes:

Extremist hate groups contribute nothing beneficial to society, and all they do is spread, well, hate.True, but censoring them only makes what they have to say more desirable, so it makes much more sense to counteract them with speech as opposed to censorship.

Free speech is overratedYeah, people should pay me when I talk.
No more speaking for free..

True, but censoring them only makes what they have to say more desirable, so it makes much more sense to counteract them with speech as opposed to censorship.

If they are censored, it's harder for them to spread their message. It only makes their views seem more right to people who already hold them. Censoring them in my opinion sends the message that they are t3h evilz. Besides, the people they hate may get a little upset when angry mobs swarm their houses and their funerals. *coughPhelpscough*

If they are censored, it's harder for them to spread their message. It only makes their views seem more right to people who already hold them. But it makes people who don't hold them seek them out, as something being censored probably means it's worth seeking out. I bought James Joyce's Ulysses because I knew it had been censored by the government, and I know I'm not the only one who reacts that way towards censorship.

Censoring them in my opinion sends the message that they are t3h evilz. No, it sends the message that they are dangerous to those in power. Sometimes, being dangerous to those in power is a good thing.

Besides, the people they hate may get a little upset when angry mobs swarm their houses and their funerals. *coughPhelpscough*People can get upset about that without them being censored.

Who decides what's acceptable and what isn't? Who decides what's hateful? If the fundy whackos in the US got to decide that, then I wouldn't be able to call them fundy whackos--I'd have to call them "the faithful remnant of the one true god" or some such nonsense. So given the choice between ceding control of my speech to some group who may be, well, assholes, and dealing with the nonsense with some groups I consider to be hate groups, I'll deal with the hate groups.

I'm not quite sure I understand why free speech is held so sacred in our society. I agree that it should be legal to complain about the government etcetera but what about the groups which are basically hate groups, like Nazis or the crazy religious fundamentalists? The main argument against outlawing groups such as these I see is the "slippery slope" argument, where outlawing certain groups is a step to dictatorship. Personally, I find this to be a flawed argument as it can be applied to almost anything to make it sound bad. Extremist hate groups contribute nothing beneficial to society, and all they do is spread, well, hate. A desire to exterminate a certain demographic of people should not be tolerated in our society. I would feel much more comfortable if all Nazis were locked up in nice, padded cells.
My short post is done.
*grip tightens on fire extinguisher*
Max Barry made a very valid point when establishing the right of free speech on this forum. I'm fairly sure it's in a post somewhere, but he said that by allowing neo-Nazis and other 'extremist hate groups' to voice their views on this forum, their arguments could be taken apart by others. By confining them to their own forums (Stormfront, etc), they only come across people who share their views, so they will not be challenged.

By allowing free speech in society, we are allowing these people to come out and share their views in public, much in the same way they are allowed to here. There opinions will then be challenged, and proven wrong. This wouldn't happen if we locked them up or outlawed them. They would never be challenged or proven wrong.

Think of free speech as a way of educating these people.

I'd say you're missing the point. All extremist groups, from nazis to the KKK to al quaeda - all of them think they're right, that they're heroes for their ideals, the paladins of whateverism. If you force them to shut up, then it only makes the sentiment of heroism grow, because they've read so much bullshit about martyrs and how suffering is heroic.

It's been said before, but:

Before, the people had no voice and the government would listen. Now people have a voice, but the government is deaf.

So basically, every time an extremist group manifests, people/governments are like "yeah yeah are you done yet?"

As JS Mill states, only by hearing all arguments including the 'wrong' ones, can we expect to find the truth. Further to this, by hearing/reading arguments that repulse us, we can hold our views with more understanding.

I think we have to tolerate these people and hope that one day they will see the light? there is always hope............................

Who decides what's acceptable and what isn't? Who decides what's hateful? If the fundy whackos in the US got to decide that, then I wouldn't be able to call them fundy whackos--I'd have to call them "the faithful remnant of the one true god" or some such nonsense. So given the choice between ceding control of my speech to some group who may be, well, assholes, and dealing with the nonsense with some groups I consider to be hate groups, I'll deal with the hate groups.
Agreed :fluffle:

Yeah, people should pay me when I talk.
No more speaking for free..
My thoughts precisely. If somebody wants me to write or deliver a speech they'll have to pay the fee.

Fee speech is where it's at.