The Liberal obsession with Nazis. It's not good for you.

The point of this thread is the danger of Liberals (and I use the word in the US sense, but it is probably generalizable to the rest of the world) using the word "Nazi" to refer to any number of political opponents.

If Nazis are illegal. Then all you have to do is show that Planned Parenthood is a Nazi organization. Then voila... you can not only put Planned Parenthood out of business, but you can jail anyone who complains about it. You can argue that it is obvious to you that Planned Parenthood is not a Nazi organisation, but that is not the point. There is a significant number of Americans (at least 25%) who would say that it is... and if there is ever a government that can convince a majority to get behind it they can control the media from that time onward (by jailing anyone who says otherwise).

The definition of Hate Speech is France is pretty broad, and the legislature made up of elected politicians makes laws to say which opinions count as Hate Speech. This is very dangerous, it gives the power to decide which opinions are acceptable and which are restricted to the power of public opinions.

In France, people who express the wrong opinions, as defined by the government, can be jailed. This gives the government in power a great deal of control over the beliefs and opinions expressed in the country.

Freedom of Speech is pretty important in a democracy.

Well, isn't France a German state, originally? Clovis, the first "French" king, was King of the Franks.

Most people who tear down the US never lived there, and they know squat beyond their prejudice. Same with the French bashers.

If Planned Parenthood supports the superiority of the "Arian race", pro.ots the killing of others - the certakly could be a Nazi organisation.
How liberal is used outside the USA ... google Liberal International

We here were invaded by the Franks 1300 years ago (but my ancestors kept their Saxon name 😎

Yes, it' a fine line to walk, and each country has to take into account her own history and social make up. There are different historical reasons why certain laws are on the book in each country. Of course law must also evolve and ideally one should aim at total freedom of speech. But some limits ALWAYS apply. Famously, you can't yell fire in a packed theatre. (I don't know if it's technically true but you get the idea) Speech that excite wantom violence are not legally admissable in any open society, because by definition open societies can only work among "civil" people. It takes a certain collective ethic, civic sense, civility, to make a democracy work. It takes a certain trust in the collective, bound by certain rules. One of this rules should be not to incite violence. To not tear appart the social fabric and sense of civility of a nation through the spread of baseless, ideological hatred.

Because civility begets civility, and hatred begets hatred. In other words, a certain level of civility in political discourse is in the nation's interest.... Not too much civility either. It's ok and healthy for any people to attack, to lambast people for what they do or say, to critique and to mock. But not to call for mass murder. Not to incite baseless violence and hatred. And of course not to spread hateful lies (prohibition of defamation).

Words are powerful. The Internet has given billions of people the means to publicly express themselces, and so far the main consequence has been the spread of fake news, radical wackos and conspiracy theories. The idea that from the choc of ideas will spark intelligence, an idea that underwrites this very a2k site, it's just not happening...

The massification of education has led to a dillution of knowledge. The Internet is making things worse more than better (it also did a few good things like wikipedia).

In America, i don't know. I don't have my fingers on her pusle anymore but my FEAR is that you're about to discover what a society becomes when it allows its common ground to be trashed by partisanship, and its sense of political civility thrown to the dogs. It's not pretty from afar.

Yep, Charlemagne christianized you heathens by the sword!

It was actually the revenge that we kicked the Franks out from their homeland some centuries before.

I don't believe they do any longer but their founder, Margaret Sanders, was a huge supporter of eugenics.

Whether or not she had non-white races in her sights is debatable, however, this sentence in a letter to a white doctor is at the heart of the controversy.



If this had been written by someone leftists don't like (i.e J Marion Sims), you can well image their interpretation would not be forgiving. In defense of Sanger they offer the following from the same letter:



Interestingly enough this piece of evidence supporting Sangers is rife with the bigotry of the time and in describing it as merely inartful (as a defender in the Washington Post did) the left reveals the hypocritical nature of their lack of temporal consideration for anyone (ie Sims) they revile.

(NOTE: I am not a defender of Sims, but if Sanger is to be granted dispensation for the prevailing attitudes of her time, then certainly Sims should be as well as he predated her by about 80 years)

The letter is hardly conclusive proof that Sanger was a racist, hell bent on exterminating "colored Negros," but it is one that was preserved and it's not far fetched to imagine that Sanger was circumspect about revealing her true feelings.

More important though is the evidence of how Abortion is the primary driving force in American left-wing politics. Clearly, it trumps concern about racism, or else the left would be castigating Sanger non-stop, and would have supported the effort of a group of black pastors to have her statue removed from the Smithsonian. (Of course, those pastors were probably all conservative Uncle Toms)

One would generally consider, at its core, choice to be a feminist issue, but the primary issue? Why else then would feminists throughout the US have voiced their support for a president (Clinton) who by any of their standards was a sexual predator? A clearly Pro-Choice president.

What rallies the left in America more than infanticide?

Europeans don't have the same attitude about free speech as do Americans, and that's fine. You've not yet dissolved into fascist states (again) as a result.

We agree on violence but not hatred.

I suppose, you are aware of the Nazi idea of eugenics?

Not any hatred is a problem, only the baseless type. If you hate a guy for what he did, that's okay. But don't hate him because he's Jewish.

Speaking of which, the Jews call it "sinat chinam". The talmud says that the Temple was destroyed because of it...

You are missing the point. Different people will have different ideas about what Constitutes hate speech. Who decides where is the line between hate speech and not hate speech?

The person, government or political party who draws that line has an awful amount of political power. Of course if you drew that line, it would be perfectly rational ... to you.

Sure, it is easy to ban Nazis with broad public support. And everyone wants to ban terror groups.

But... some people want to ban "Black Lives Matter" (since it advocates a race). Other people want to ban anyone who supports Israeli settlements (since there are people who believe the settlements are genocide). Other people want to ban anyone who opposes Israeli settlements (since they believe the Palestinians support terror and are antisemitic).

On each of these issues, and many more, there will be politicians drawing the line based on popular opinion. And on each of these cases there will be people who have an political opinion that will be stifled.

We are talking about putting people in jail for holding an unpopular opinion. Who draws the line?

Let's not bring up you guys siding with Attila aux champs catalauniques... I could blow a gasket about that!

A judge. Who else?

Geez! That makes me feel better.

Of course the judges take the lead of the politicians. The majority popular opinion can put people in jail for any idea that people find offensive. All you have to do is harness public hysteria to ban an idea; be it the use of drugs, or religious ideas, or criticism of Israel... pass a law and you can stifle anything.

The US constitutional protection for free speech is the right idea. Minority opinions must be protected in a truly free society.

By the way, this is not a hypothetical in France. In the past decade, people have been arrested for anti-Israel stickers, and for comedy routines.

And it is not just actual arrest... the very threat of arrest stifles the freedom of expression. If I see people in the news facing arrest for criticizing Israel, I am much less likely to express my opinion of the Israeli occupation. This makes it much more difficult to have any real public discussion about an important issue.

The US is right about free speech.

There could be a non-monetary cost to free speech. So, in effect, it is not free, or at least without repercussions. For example, one works for a Jewish boss, quite secular, but an avid lover of Israel, in context of family that were murdered back in Russia by the advancing Nazis. Now, do you really believe that such a boss will promote a person that has water cooler schmoozing about Israel being a last vestige of European colonizing? Or use the anti-Israel rhetoric as a rationale that that person might not be able to get along in all groups?

How many divorces are based on the reality that all speech is not free?

The issue is whether the elected officials and appointed judges should be the ones to decide whether the words of Israel lovers, or Israel critics constitute hate speech. Obviously in your private life, you can decide with whom you want to associate (but you don't have the power to put people who you decide are offensive in jail).

You don't need to feel bad about French laws. Or are you planning to come on French soil and tell us that Jews are bad people?

The judge just applies the law. And the convictions are typically from a symbolic one euro to a couple thousand. Nobody goes to jail for saying anything. Not even Faurisson, the worse of that negationist scum, was only once condemned to a suspended 3 months sentence in 2006, after decades of much more lenient sentences. He never did any actual jail time.

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2006/10/03/le-negationniste-robert-faurisson-a-ete-condamne-a-trois-mois-de-prison-avec-sursis_819590_3224.html