I have recently had a very brief exchange on another board concerning the concept of "absolute free speech" and its potential consequences.
My example was Julius Streicher whom some of you may know was the the founder and editor of the Nazi anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Stürmer. The crude anti-Jewish invective regularly published in that newspaper provided a means by which Hitler's persecutory racial policies could be disseminated to a wider audience and helped in initiating the Nürnberg Laws of 1935.
In 1940, following scandals concerning his finances and private life, Streicher was eventually disgraced and stripped of his party posts. He was confined to his estate in Bavaria and its environs for the rest of the war but continued to serve as the editor of the newspaper because of the personal protection he received from Hitler.
At Nürnberg following the war Streicher was convicted of crimes against humanity because of the part his paper had played in fomenting and encouraging the anti-Semitism that ultimately led to the Holocaust. He was hanged in 1946.
My question therefore was did Streicher deserve to die merely for employing his "right" to "absolute free speech"?
One correspondent disagreed with the Allies' verdict and considers that Streicher should not have been executed. That same correspondent also held to the view that newspapers like Der Stürmer should be freely available to purchase in today's America, albeit with perhaps a cautionary warning.
The wider reaching ethical question therefore surrounds the notion of "absolute free speech" and its potential consequences.
To place the issue in a contemporary setting, should a vlogger/blogger who uses the internet or cable channel to repeatedly express hatred, promulgate lies, and employs violent imagery and language against a specific group of people, be completely exonerated if members of his/her audience take it upon themselves to put his/her comments into effect?
Or should that individual bear the responsibility for actively encouraging attitudes that led to those actions?
My example was Julius Streicher whom some of you may know was the the founder and editor of the Nazi anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Stürmer. The crude anti-Jewish invective regularly published in that newspaper provided a means by which Hitler's persecutory racial policies could be disseminated to a wider audience and helped in initiating the Nürnberg Laws of 1935.
In 1940, following scandals concerning his finances and private life, Streicher was eventually disgraced and stripped of his party posts. He was confined to his estate in Bavaria and its environs for the rest of the war but continued to serve as the editor of the newspaper because of the personal protection he received from Hitler.
At Nürnberg following the war Streicher was convicted of crimes against humanity because of the part his paper had played in fomenting and encouraging the anti-Semitism that ultimately led to the Holocaust. He was hanged in 1946.
My question therefore was did Streicher deserve to die merely for employing his "right" to "absolute free speech"?
One correspondent disagreed with the Allies' verdict and considers that Streicher should not have been executed. That same correspondent also held to the view that newspapers like Der Stürmer should be freely available to purchase in today's America, albeit with perhaps a cautionary warning.
The wider reaching ethical question therefore surrounds the notion of "absolute free speech" and its potential consequences.
To place the issue in a contemporary setting, should a vlogger/blogger who uses the internet or cable channel to repeatedly express hatred, promulgate lies, and employs violent imagery and language against a specific group of people, be completely exonerated if members of his/her audience take it upon themselves to put his/her comments into effect?
Or should that individual bear the responsibility for actively encouraging attitudes that led to those actions?
Comment