"absolute free speech"

[rogue06]

The Nazi propaganda never categorically endorsed the murder of Jews and nor did Streicher.

All they employed were words and images, which according to you is the purpose of free speech "The purpose of free speech has to do with allowing individuals or groups the right to express their opinion, not with whether or not it is a "benefit" (now there's a nebulous word in this context) society/humanity."

Please define "categorically" as it is used here.


FWICT, he never advocated anything like the Final Solution but instead was a proponent of the so-called "Madagascar Plan" (shipping the Jews to the African island which was at the time controlled by France), although it appears that he was so anti-Semitic that he literally embarrassed other Nazis with his "enthusiasm." So, if he never advocated for murdering them then I don't think Streicher should have been executed.

[Ronson]

That is certainly correct when dealing with legislation. However, there is also an ethical dimension. Can a person write or say what they like without recognising there may be consequences?

How does that matter? If it isn't legislated then society made the decision. Perhaps a civil suit can be brought about by reckless speech, but it is only a crime under specific circumstances.

As you have noted, where is the line to be drawn defining incitement?

Only by what has been spoken or written. If Streicher wrote "these people should not be tolerated" then that is not incitement. But ... if he wrote or spoke elsewhere that he hoped it would incite violence, then that addendum might push him into incitement. But again, his intent is based on what he has expressed, and not mind-reading or faulty interpretations.

Streicher's weekly newspaper had been entirely devoted to rousing racial hatred and during the Nazi era became one of the most widely circulated in Germany. His trial was because of his virulent anti-Semitism and it was argued that while he played no part in the Holocaust [others did that] he had greatly assisted in preparing the ground.

A prosecutor might use that as "aggravating circumstances" but he would probably need more (in this country) to prove intent. IMO

[rogue06]

H_A, do you support "Hate Speech" legislation?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Please define "categorically" as it is used here.


FWICT, he never advocated anything like the Final Solution but instead was a proponent of the so-called "Madagascar Plan" (shipping the Jews to the African island which was at the time controlled by France), although it appears that he was so anti-Semitic that he literally embarrassed other Nazis with his "enthusiasm." So, if he never advocated for murdering them then I don't think Streicher should have been executed.

How does that matter? If it isn't legislated then society made the decision. Perhaps a civil suit can be brought about by reckless speech, but it is only a crime under specific circumstances.



Only by what has been spoken or written. If Streicher wrote "these people should not be tolerated" then that is not incitement. But ... if he wrote or spoke elsewhere that he hoped it would incite violence, then that addendum might push him into incitement. But again, his intent is based on what he has expressed, and not mind-reading or faulty interpretations.



A prosecutor might use that as "aggravating circumstances" but he would probably need more (in this country) to prove intent. IMO

At a closed meeting of the Nazi student organisation in 1935 Streicher was more blunt but of course his words there were not for general circulation and the source for that speech is a summary in a report of captured German documents.

"All our struggles are in vain if the battle against the Jews is not fought to the finish. It is not enough to get the Jews out of Germany. No, they must be killed in the entire world, so that humanity will be free of them."

However, as war rapidly approached in 1939 there were more direct comments being made in Der Stürmer. Ernst Hiemer wrote that "The Jewish question is not yet solved. It will not be solved even when the last Jew has left Germany. It will be solved only when world Jewry is annihilated ". In 1940, when the war was underway, Streicher wrote a lead editorial that concluded that there was only one way in which to bring about world peace and that would be achieved "when the enemy of peace and freedom is annihilated: the world criminal Pan-Jewry".

Were such comments simply the expressing of opinions in a newspaper? Or were they incitement to murder?

[rogue06]

At a closed meeting of the Nazi student organisation in 1935 Streicher was more blunt but of course his words there were not for general circulation and the source for that speech is a summary in a report of captured German documents.

"All our struggles are in vain if the battle against the Jews is not fought to the finish. It is not enough to get the Jews out of Germany. No, they must be killed in the entire world, so that humanity will be free of them."

However, as war rapidly approached in 1939 there were more direct comments being made in Der Stürmer. Ernst Hiemer wrote that "The Jewish question is not yet solved. It will not be solved even when the last Jew has left Germany. It will be solved only when world Jewry is annihilated ". In 1940, when the war was underway, Streicher wrote a lead editorial that concluded that there was only one way in which to bring about world peace and that would be achieved "when the enemy of peace and freedom is annihilated: the world criminal Pan-Jewry".

Were such comments simply the expressing of opinions in a newspaper? Or were they incitement to murder?

Still waiting for you to define "categorically" as you used it.

[Cow Poke]

And this....

H_A, do you support "Hate Speech" legislation?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

H_A, do you support "Hate Speech" legislation?

If by hate speech you are referring to extreme propaganda [usually, but not always, from the far right] graphic portrayals of random/wanton violence and cruelty, including towards non humans, murder or rape threats, violent and aggressive language and threats of physical violence against an individual, or against a particular group premised solely on their views, ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation, comments indicating the preparation of some form of violent and/or terrorist attack, or the distribution of child sex abuse images. Then I would most likely answer Yes.

However, there may also also be other examples that I have not, at this precise moment, considered.

[rogue06]

If by hate speech you are referring to extreme propaganda [usually, but not always, from the far right] graphic portrayals of random/wanton violence and cruelty, including towards non humans, murder or rape threats, violent and aggressive language and threats of physical violence against an individual, or against a particular group premised solely on their views, ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation, comments indicating the preparation of some form of violent and/or terrorist attack, or the distribution of child sex abuse images. Then I would most likely answer Yes.

However, there may also also be other examples that I have not, at this precise moment, considered.

You left out religious and political orientation while including "non humans"

Such laws call for increased penalties over what someone would normally receive or would get if the same act was done to someone not on the protected people list (as Orwell informed us, some are more equal than others). In a sense Streicher fell afoul of just the sort of laws you favor.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You left out religious and political orientation while including "non humans"

This is what I wrote:

"graphic portrayals of random/wanton violence and cruelty, including towards non humans, murder or rape threats, violent and aggressive language and threats of physical violence against an individual, or against a particular group premised solely on their views, ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation"

In a sense Streicher fell afoul of just the sort of laws you favor.

I would contend his language [and that others like him] might be construed as more than "in a sense" falling "afoul".

[rogue06]

This is what I wrote:

"graphic portrayals of random/wanton violence and cruelty, including towards non humans, murder or rape threats, violent and aggressive language and threats of physical violence against an individual, or against a particular group premised solely on their views, ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation"

My bad, sort of. You still think hate crimes can be directed toward non humans.

And I guess you're pondering how your support of hate crimes legislation can be used to support the death penalty being given out to folks who hadn't committed crimes deserving of such a sentence -- except that they committed those crimes against someone in the wrong group.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My bad, sort of. You still think hate crimes can be directed toward non humans.

Yes if the language endorses or encourages wanton cruelty and violence.

And I guess you're pondering how your support of hate crimes legislation can be used to support the death penalty being given out to folks who hadn't committed crimes deserving of such a sentence -- except that they committed those crimes against someone in the wrong group.

I do not have the slightest idea what you are attempting to suggest/infer/state in the above sentence.

[KingsGambit]

If you want to read a full book length defense of absolute free speech, here you go. Threats, incitement to violence, extortion, fraud, fire in a crowded theater, this tome covers them all:

https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable

The arguments therein are, frankly, horrible, but the author is more consistent than most Americans who say they support "free speech" but carve in exceptions left and right.

In an apologetics group I'm in, one Christian posted a blog length article that suggested that Christians should not even support generic "free speech" (focusing largely on the issus of erotica/pornography), and it made me think about a few things. I'll probably get around to starting a thread about that in Christianity 201 at some point.

[rogue06]

I do not have the slightest idea what you are attempting to suggest/infer/state in the above sentence.

In that case, I will write it slower so that you can keep up.

Hate crime legislation, which you support, causes the sentences handed out for the convictions of various crimes to often be even harsher than the normal allowable maximum. Therefore the same mentality behind enacting hate crime laws, one you agree with, is what can lead to the death penalty being handed out for crimes that would otherwise not warrant it. Such as maybe Streicher

Finally, typically, "hate crimes" tend to be reserved for the protection of a few government designated groups, meaning anyone, not also in a similar designated group, who commits a crime against anyone in such a group can find them facing additional penalties.

Hence...

And I guess you're pondering how your support of hate crimes legislation can be used to support the death penalty being given out to folks who hadn't committed crimes deserving of such a sentence -- except that they committed those crimes against someone in the wrong group.

Btw, still waiting for you to define "categorically" as you used it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In that case, I will write it slower so that you can keep up.

Your syntax in that sentence was execrable.

Hate crime legislation, which you support, causes the sentences handed out for the convictions of various crimes to often be even harsher than the normal allowable maximum. Therefore the same mentality behind enacting hate crime laws, one you agree with, is what can lead to the death penalty being handed out for crimes that would otherwise not warrant it. Such as maybe Streicher

Finally, typically, "hate crimes" tend to be reserved for the protection of a few government designated groups, meaning anyone, not also in a similar designated group, who commits a crime against anyone in such a group can find them facing additional penalties.

We do not have the death penalty.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you want to read a full book length defense of absolute free speech, here you go. Threats, incitement to violence, extortion, fraud, fire in a crowded theater, this tome covers them all:

https://mises.org/library/defending-undefendable

The arguments therein are, frankly, horrible, but the author is more consistent than most Americans who say they support "free speech" but carve in exceptions left and right.

In an apologetics group I'm in, one Christian posted a blog length article that suggested that Christians should not even support generic "free speech" (focusing largely on the issus of erotica/pornography), and it made me think about a few things. I'll probably get around to starting a thread about that in Christianity 201 at some point.

Thank you.