I think if it were actual Nazis - i.e. people that promote a new holocaust against anyone other than white people, etc etc then I don't think people would have a problem.
Unfortunately, the term has become so devalued that "Nazi" means "Anyone that supports Trump".
As soon as people start rolling out "free speech" in a conversation about business policy the entire conversation is lost.
Free speech does not apply to private business. Enforcing free speech to a private business is closer to a form of government oppression than it is freedom.
The United States has done a great job of brainwashing its population to think that "freedom" is universally the best thing. It's not. In many scenarios freedom actually comes from oppressing someone else (and it's no surprise that oppression is basically the cornerstone of the United States).
There are just about zero websites out there that adhere to truly "free" speech because it's nearly impossible. Doubly so if you want to make a profit. Even 4chan has rules about what you can say there, believe it or not.
I think considering it an actual belief in "free speech" is giving them too much credit. It's a shield the hateful hide behind, that's all. The people screaming loudest about free speech are more than happy to shut down the rights of others.
Just try to make a comment that's even somewhat balanced in /r/politics, which is a cesspool of intolerant lefties who can't stand any disagreement or debate.
Note, this is not /r/liberalpolitics, or /r/progressivepolitics, but /r/politics, and yet it is an extremely one-sided exercise in herd behavior.
Check the heavy handed moderation on subreddits like the /r/conservative and /r/the_donald.
The former has many threads that are marked "conservatives only" which auto delete any comments from anyone not tagged as conservative by mods. t_d will just delete your comments and ban you if you dare to speak out against Trump.
And all this is not even counting the downvotes you get for speaking your mind in rightwing or alt right places.
You're 100% right and as an American I'm proud that you can't be jailed for saying something stupid. Free speech has several restrictions in the US, and anyone who says it is "totally unrestricted" is simply showing their ignorance of the actual restrictions in place.
Inciting violence with your speech is a crime, and all the free speech in the world will not protect you from the backlash from private citizens and organizations. It just means the government can't lock you in a cage for saying something idiotic like "the Holocaust never happened."
Only if you go ahead and openly shout "kill that Jew", for example. The hidden ways to incite hatred in the masses with speech are perfectly legal, most of these even in Europe.
> It just means the government can't lock you in a cage for saying something idiotic like "the Holocaust never happened."
Denying the Holocaust is not just idiotic, it is an outright denial of provable facts and an immense disrespect to all the victims of the gas ovens at Auschwitz and the other KZs.
In Germany, Holocaust denial is expressly forbidden by law for the latter reason.
> Denying the Holocaust is not just idiotic, it is an outright denial of provable facts and an immense disrespect to all the victims of the gas ovens at Auschwitz and the other KZs.
Even more than that, it contributes to creating an atmosphere where it could happen again. Simply existing as a Nazi or white supremacist is a call for violence, and silencing them is justified self defense.
Isn't the whole crux of this discussion whether or not "immense disrespect" should be enough to jail someone?
Denying provable facts shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an idiot. Being disrespectful shouldn't be a crime, it should label you as an asshole. I don't want to live in a world where being an asshole and an idiot is enough to get you put in prison.
If this is true (which I might be willing to concede), then should the same standard not be applied equally to anyone who self-identifies as a communist in today's world? Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century (and 21st century, because they're ongoing), which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism.
Silencing has the opposite effect to what you wanted. It's the Streisand Effect. Your act of censorship only serves as arsenal for the people you are censoring, because they can point at it and say "look, if they didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't restrict us from talking about it."
This is why I won't call for silencing communists, even though I vehemently disagree with their ideology. I have a bit more faith that humans can recognize bad ideas themselves and do not need to be told what to think.
I'm not going to give any credence to the moronic belief that both "extremes" are fascist. Communism is a far-left ideology based on public ownership of the means of production, there is nothing inherently violent about it.
Please explain the process by which the means of production passes from private ownership to public ownership WITHOUT coercion via threat of force/violence or actual usage of force.
1. Income taxes != capital asset confiscation, especially as taxes are not anywhere near 100%. The closest thing we have to that is civil asset forfeiture, perpetrated at the state and local levels. Note that civil asset forfeiture is increasingly being challenged by the courts as Unconstitutional.[1]
2. Do you know what happens when you DON'T pay your taxes? The government exercises its monopoly on violence and throws you in jail. If this tax analogy is the best your mind could conjure up to prove "communism is non-violent", your thought process is just as much of an unsurprising failure as every other Communist implementor to come before you.
> Please explain the process by which the means of production passes from private ownership to public ownership WITHOUT coercion via threat of force/violence or actual usage of force.
Well, if it's coercive, it's no more coercive than capitalism, which likewise relies on state use and threat of force to defend it's model of property rights.
You are comparing people defending their own property to people stealing other people's property.
Fortunately, humanity came to agreement about which of these two were acceptable at the dawn of civilization. Stealing is not acceptable, and property rights are essential for freedom. Capitalism does not rely on any "state" to enforce violence. It requires that people go about their lives without interfering with other people's lives except through mutually beneficial trade. States have developed as a means for people to collectively secure their freedom to cooperate in this way so that they don't need to be constantly under the threat of invasion from cavemen who do not share any of those values.
Of course, I am willing to concede that states do not have impeccable records when it comes to utilizing its violence - but if anything, this only adds to the argument for small government. Big government has more resources to squander on wars and less ability for the constituents it purports to represent to have any effect on its policies. A communist government is the biggest form of government you can get. It is also unaccountable, because you can't vote them out.
Ultimately, while regressive thinkers exist, there exists a need for people to collectively pool their resources to defending their freedoms and their properties from those who would like to steal and enslave them.
> You are comparing people defending their own property to people stealing other people's property.
No, I'm comparing people forcibly, by way of the state, defining property one way and depriving people who disagree with that definition of what the dissenters see as their property rights to people forcibly, by way of the state, defining property a different way and depriving people who disagree with that other definition of what this other set of dissenters see as their property rights.
That you happen to prefer the capitalist model of property rights doesn't change the fact that it is imposed with state violence on those who disagree with it's parameters.
> Fortunately, humanity came to agreement about which of these two were acceptable at the dawn of civilization.
Humanity did not come to a universal consensus on a model of property rights at the dawn of civilization, and various models of property rights have gained and lost popularity in the intervening time with many (including as recent examples, but not limited to, the Leninist Communist model and the capitalist model) having been imposed through state force at various times and places.
> Simply existing as a communist might be a call to repeat the same mistakes of the 20th century, which are in no way less horrific than the mistakes of fascism.
Communism in itself does not imply violence towards minorities or putting people into Gulags. Nazism or fascism always does, the demonization of those not in the "Volkskörper" (or deemed too weak to be worthy) is the core ideology.
While I agree that autoritarian Communism has failed and those who still adore Stalin are morons, there are many more Communist views that do not resort to authoritarianism.
Communism implies violence against anybody who does not wish to have the fruits of their labour stolen from them by the state. If people had the choice as to whether or not they can keep the wealth they generated, or to give it up "for the greater good," then which option do you think most people would take if they were not under threat of violence?
This is why communism simply cannot work. If you give people choice, it turns out they generate wealth not only for themselves - but they generate wealth for the societies in which they live too. This is what Adam Smith calls the invisible hand. Free markets economies are prosperous because people's self-interest leads to innovation and improved standard of living for everyone.
Communism is rooted in jealousy. Even though people owe their standard of living to the merits of the capitalists which built their societies, they're bitter because they are not among the most wealthy. It is no surprise that there are now countless examples of it being tried in the real world and it leading to all around suffering. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is always going to be controlled by bitter people, and they're going to use their newly found powers to extract wealth in attempt to cure their own bitterness.
> Simply existing as a Nazi or white supremacist is a call for violence, and silencing them is justified self defense.
It's very easy to make the same argument for Muslims. Yes, there are millions of peaceful Muslims in the U.S., but their religion dictates that they need to conquer and subjugate infidels. There's 1400 years of history to back that up. It is absolutely arguable that just existing as a Muslim is a call for violence.
Should we ban them as well?
What about "Antifa", who exist entirely to wreak violence on people they disagree with, and even do it with impunity. If we should ban Nazis and white supremacists, we need to ban Antifa as well.
I'm just trying to apply your principles consistently.
I am sympathetic to your incredulity but you are the one that needs to realize that yes these people exist and this one is here on HN discussing his mass murder plans with you.
No it isn't, because murder is always wrong. Killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing Nazis was a matter of self-defense. Murdering them would not be.
Well when you say something like "silencing someone by any means necessary based solely on their beliefs is justifiable" I think it's fair to make sure you know that you're literally advocating killing people based not on their actions, or even their words, but their thoughts.
I think this is an example where continental Europe differs from the UK. Although we have strong libel laws, the presumption I would hope is still closer to that put forward by JS Mill in On Liberty.
