Anonymous #1 1d

And our dumbass country will arrest you and let them walk

42

Anonymous #1 1d

Erm, no.

-8

Anonymous #2 1d

tf u mean no are u saying wearing nazi armbands are okay

16

Anonymous #3 1d

No I'm saying punching someone in the face has nothing to do with speech. I'd rather him get punched personally but like that's still assault 😭 dosent even have anything to do with speech. It's an expression of your violence at best. Which most people call assault/ battery if he gets injured.

17

Anonymous #2 1d

Look at the guy going out of his way to defend a Nazi

7

Anonymous #2 1d

“I got punched because I’m a Nazi” nobody is gonna be taking their side

9

Anonymous #4 1d

Except that I’m pretty sure #2 is right. Ultimately the whole point of freedom of expression is that it doesn’t matter how other people feel about it, they’re protected. Even if they’re literal dogshit on a stick, they have the right to be that as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, and physically assaulting them *would* be antithetical to that. I’m sure you could argue that your assault is just your own self-expression, but your self expression is still infringing on his own self expression-

10

Anonymous #7 1d

- which is where the real problem with the assault lies. He has the right to be a douche but we don’t have the right to assault him for it. Unless he assaults someone first. Our feelings don’t matter.

5

Anonymous #7 23h

Bro I said nobody is going to be taking their side, not that im immune to assault charges. Sure a judge might rule in their favor but I bet they’re gonna give you a fist bump as you’re marched off to community service.

3

Anonymous #9 23h

If someone has the right to express themselves this way, then no one has the right to feel safe in their own country. One is clearly more important than the other. We already have limits on free speech. Taking away the right to wear a literal swastica is not so bad. Instead, our govt is already making it illegal to support Palestine or boycott Israel. So shut the fuck up

4

Anonymous #8 23h

💯

0

Oh man geez I guess we aren’t born with the ability to say whatever we want. Also sorry I thought my natural ability to walk places let me go anywhere and the only thing restricting my right to roam is the law telling me where I can and can’t go.

35

Anonymous #7 23h

Do you hear how stupid everything you said sounds? Maybe stop arguing for the status quo and use your argumentative skills for good. How about explaining the fact that being an asshole will probably get your ass beat, regardless of what the law says?

-4

Anonymous #4 23h

Well. Not one of Trump's judges. Or a judge in the South. Guess it depends 😓

-5

Anonymous #1 23h

You want to give the government the power to restrict speech it deems harmful? The same government that just defined antifacism as terrorism? You realize how badly that would be abused, right?

2

Anonymous #4 23h

You actually can't say whatever you want. You can't threaten someone. A good lawyer could make the case that wearing a Nazi armband is a threat to the people the Nazis famously genocided.

16

Anonymous #8 23h

It quite literally does mean freedom from legal consequences

9

Anonymous #1 23h

I agree with 9 on this. We might not like how some people express themselves but the ability to freely do so under the loose restrictions we do have is key to preventing the encroachment of government authority into our personal lives

9

Anonymous #9 23h

My dude, they already have that power. Idk why we're arguing about it. They already label anyone they don't like a terrorist for protesting with anti fascist rhetoric. In some cities it is illegal to boycott or defame Israel. Etc Why don't you chuds go complain about that instead of using your time to defend a nazi's right to wear Holocaust memorabilia?

5

Anonymous #1 23h

Sure pal

7

Anonymous #9 23h

Not every consequence is legal, chud

-1

Anonymous #4 23h

Bigoted judges have a history of letting white supremacists off the hook, but sure, downvote and disagree with the only other guy on your side in this comment section

-2

Anonymous #4 23h

lol #1 blocked me

0

Anonymous #1 23h

My point is that humans naturally possess the ability to speak and move freely. Laws don’t create those freedoms. They’re naturally given, only restricted by legal systems them when society believes doing so is beneficial. That’s the distinction I’m making.

28

Anonymous #4 23h

I also posees the ability to move freely. Such as moving my fist into their face :)

12

Anonymous #9 23h

Yikes. Touchy guy

4

Anonymous #1 22h

Well then don't cry because they're legally protected

1

Anonymous #1 22h

I think you have me mistaken for another poster. Note how in my other response to this particular thread, while I acknowledge that you will probably get punished for assault, I approve of that action. Through my analogy of the judge giving you a fist bump, I claim that while the law says one thing, society overall will likely approve of your actions. Thus, regarding this particular matter, I am more “on your side” than not, and by attacking me, you attack your ally. So leave me alone

7

Anonymous #1 22h

You’re simultaneously saying the government already abuses speech restrictions while also claiming it should have more authority to limit what we say. That’s exactly what people who defend broad free speech protections are worried about.

4

Anonymous #1 22h

Nice, but I assume you mean “faces” since there’s two of them

9

Anonymous #11 22h

It's more complicated than that. With fascism, it's freedom of speech for me, but not for thee. So it's not really free. It's a dog whistle. Just like how "spreading democracy" really means spreading capitalism and stomping out anything that threatens it.

1

Anonymous #4 21h

I can’t mass mail pornography because SCOTUS decided “obscene speech” is illegal despite it being a form of speech. The government already decided they can restrict even our most core principles, they just allow hate speech because they can

9

Anonymous #4 21h

I was not attacking you. I was suggesting that surprisingly few judges give a shit about whether you're a Nazi or not. This country is literally run by them.

1

Anonymous #1 21h

95% of our politicians are funded by aipac, I don’t think nazi’s would accept money from Israeli lobbyists. This is where you’re overusing the word nazi which dilutes its actual vile meaning.

1

Anonymous #11 21h

If you're seriously trying to make the case that our country is not run by white Christian nationalists, I think I'm gonna have to block you for being the biggest idiot I've ever seen

1

Anonymous #1 21h

“Downvote and disagree with the only other guy on your side in this comment section” sure sounds like an attack on me. You either need to work on your phrasing or reading comprehension skills.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

You must be soft as hell if you think me saying I'm on your side is somehow an attack

1

Anonymous #9 20h

It does protect from government censorship but it is not free from non-governmental consequences or social repercussions

3

Anonymous #15 19h

Cause every minority knows that the cops are all Nazis / KKK too so they're gonna side with the guy getting his ass beat with the armband

10

Anonymous #1 19h

I don’t agree with that. I’ve thought about becoming a cop just because you get paid decent and get to drive around all day. And some of them work at the zoo. You just walk around the zoo and get paid for it. Seems pretty sweet. So are power hungry dicks, but some are just dudes looking for a chill job

-4

Anonymous #15 19h

Yeah not literally every single cop dumbass, but enough of them that you should assume there's a good chance whatever cop ends up showing up might be a bigot

5

Anonymous #15 19h

Like way more than "a few bad apples" but not 90% of them either And the ones that are truly horrid people don't get any pushback from their peers so they have free rein to be as abusive as they want in most cases. And when they get in trouble in a lawsuit, it comes out of our tax dollars and they get relocated to another town

6

Anonymous #1 19h

Oh I just don’t like all the cop hate from the left, and I feel like if more people rationalized most cops as just normal dudes that needed a job it would be better off for everyone.

-5

Anonymous #1 19h

Not as people that would go out of their way to protect a Nazi…

-5

Anonymous #15 19h

Nazis soldiers were also just people doing their jobs my dude. If your job is part of an institution that oppresses people, you're a bad person for supporting that institution even if you're not personally victimizing anyone. And that's what the entire US police system is. It systematically oppresses minorities here. You don't have to agree. You just said you're not on the left so I'm gonna block you momentarily anyway.

8

Anonymous #1 19h

Block me😂for what? Somebody likes living in a bubble…

-5

Anonymous #15 19h

For being a bigot 🖕🏼 get fucked

8

Anonymous #1 19h

Minorities are not oppressed. If they committed less crimes they’d be arrested less

-4

Anonymous #9 19h

Yes, but private businesses and individuals can still inflict consequences upon you

9

Anonymous #15 19h

LOL, “I’m not racist, I just say racist things and then act confused when called out on it!” 😂😂😂😂

11

Anonymous #8 19h

Agreed, that’s what I was trying to say! OP is arguing for legal consequences though, which is why I brought it up.

3

Anonymous #17 18h

I’m so dead serious

5

Anonymous OP 18h

Ok well it seems like a pretty poorly thought out take to me, like the kind of thing someone would say if they were more concerned with getting a hit tweet than actually making sense. But go off I guess

1

Anonymous #17 18h

Why do you think so?

4

Anonymous #16 18h

Uhh freedom of speech is important? I don't think we should open the door to limiting rights just to save us being offended from something the majority agrees is bad. That's like two steps away from silencing minority groups unfortunately. I say let the nazis expose themselves

7

Anonymous #17 18h

I think freedom of speech is important too, but banning something like the public presentation of a swastika outside of educational contexts doesn’t seem like it would have any potential societal drawbacks or harms

0

Anonymous #16 18h

It's not a step we need to take. We do not need more exceptions to our most basic rights. You can use your rights to counteract them. I swear y'all try to be so woke that you don't back around to being fascists it's hilarious

0

Anonymous #17 18h

**loop back around

1

Anonymous #17 17h

So, censoring hate speech is now “fascism?” I don’t think you know what fascism is…

0

Anonymous #16 17h

Yes, censoring hate speech is fascism.

6

Anonymous #16 17h

Well it's not necessarily fascism specifically but it's in the fascist playbook for sure

1

Anonymous #17 17h

Define fascism 😂😂😂

1

Anonymous #17 17h

Fascists don’t censor hate speech, they use it as a tool for their goals… they use hate speech to unify their political base, target scapegoats, and dehumanize political opponents Fascists may censor opponents’ political speech, but they need hate speech legal to accomplish their goals

0

Anonymous #16 17h

I'm truly baffled that you think you're on the right side of this argument. You seem pretty educated.

1

Anonymous #17 17h

It’s because people don’t know what fascism is, people associate all authoritarianism with fascism, fascism is inherently right-wing and hierarchical, it needs hate speech to dehumanize and disparage scapegoated social groups, for example Jews or socialists in Nazi Germany or trans people and immigrants in the U.S. today

4

Anonymous #16 17h

Correct. China for example is not fascist, they're authoritarian (for those who believe that) We already have limits on our free speech. It is not absolute. There's no reason why wearing a swastica shouldn't be illegal under a presumed threat of violence.

2

Anonymous #16 17h

I was mainly just saying fascism because it was the more ironic comparison to woke but I'm pretty anti authoritarian in general for what it's worth. I especially don't think we should be heavily censored/surveiled over dumb shit like this

1

Anonymous #1 17h

What are we doing here

1

Anonymous #17 17h

I mean, I don’t think hate speech is “dumb” at all. I think it legitimately hurts people and harms society, and we would see both mass improvements in physical and mental health.

-1

Anonymous #16 17h

Act utilitarian ass argument

1

Anonymous #17 17h

I mean when making public policy and public health decisions, it’s a valuable framework Hate speech is a symptom of racial inequality which is a public health issue

0

Anonymous #16 17h

Do you think slurs should be banned as well?

1

Anonymous #17 17h

Yes, that’s what hate speech is, slurs and negative, inaccurate stereotypes

0

Anonymous #17 17h

I think it should only be banned in public situations tho, public incitement to violence or harm against an identifiable racial, ethnic, or religious group or a group by their gender identity, sexuality, disability, or citizenship status for example

0

Anonymous #16 17h

I think we just have dramatically different worldviews

1

Anonymous #17 17h

very likely, you care more about individual freedoms whereas I care more about general wellbeing

5

Anonymous #16 17h

Not in a capitalist way but yeah. I feel like you think the government should just do everything that theoretically has a net benefit and I think that's where it gets pretty fucked but to each their own

1

Anonymous #17 17h

Not everything, but something like hate speech seems like an easier thing to enforce and single out, especially bc more structural change would be opposed even more harshly Things simply need to be done to try to limit the power of white privilege and patriarchy and to try to integrate minority groups into society at-large

0

Anonymous #19 13h

Not necessarily

4

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” - 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

1

Anonymous #16 13h

I guess it’s just a coincidence that every fascist government bans offensive or disagreeable speech.

0

Anonymous #19 13h

Fascist governments don’t ban hate speech because fascists use hate speech to diminish the scapegoats in their ideology Do you the difference between hate speech versus offensive or disagreeable speech? Those are different categories. There’s a difference between, “Black people are inherently violent. Protect your children!” versus “Black people are annoying.”

3

Anonymous #16 13h

The US government has started eroding trans rights under the guise that trans people are extremists. It started out as just going after trans activism, drag, sexual books, etc. There’s a direct pipeline that goes ‘trans people are dangerous -> we need to ban pro-trans speech -> now we need to remove trans rights.’ This system operates under the assumption that trans people are the ones being extremists.

0

Anonymous #19 13h

Yes, but what does this have to do with hate speech laws? If anything, this process wouldn’t be as possible because the statements demonizing trans people would be made illegal.

6

Anonymous #16 13h

Because in this system, pro-trans speech is seen as dangerous/offensive speech. Yet, it’s being outlawed despite being not dangerous at all. Trans people have just been labeled terrorists by the government, the same government which has never declared the KKK a terrorist group. My point isn’t about hate speech specifically but about any speech that is dangerous, offensive, obscene, or insert any other adjective the government might use here.

0

Anonymous #19 13h

Now, a world exists where the government can arrest you for saying ‘trans rights’ just because they’ve deems your speech dangerous. Even though that’s your first amendment right. They can’t do that Nazis. (And they can’t constitutionally do that to anybody saying ‘trans rights’, either). But if the government did criminalize all dangerous speech, then arrest a pro-trans activist would be fully constitutional.

1

Anonymous #19 13h

All “dangerous speech,” yes, but that’s not what I’m advocating for, I’m advocating for hate speech specifically which has its own legal definition rather than simply something offensive or distasteful

0

Anonymous #16 13h

There are people arguing that “tax the rich” is hate speech

0

Anonymous #9 13h

I mean, it wouldn’t fit the legal definition of hate speech at all

2

Anonymous #16 12h

That’s entirely my point! Once the government bans a certain type of speech, they can argue that anything fits under that. If the government bans hate speech, they could arrest anyone who makes negative comments about the president, citing it as hate speech. If the government bans hate speech, they can rewrite what hate speech means.

6

Anonymous #19 12h

Being pro-trans is not terrorism, but the government has just claimed it is, and can now unconstitutionally arrest people for being pro-trans. Why? Because they already decided that terrorism is illegal. I’m not advocating for terrorism to be legal here, I hope you understand that. But when the government bans certain types of speech, it just opens the floodgates.

5

Anonymous #19 12h

I mean, we already have restrictions on the 1st Amendment though, we already have exceptions for incitement to criminal behavior or violence, like you can’t legally yell, “Fire!” in a movie theater for example, does this logic apply to these restrictions too, or just the ones I proposed?

2

Anonymous #16 11h

The government can define hate speech however they want. That’s the issue

2

Anonymous #9 10h

That’s why you design the law itself to define what hate speech is and isn’t…

0

Anonymous #16 9h

No law can do that, because it’s inherently subjective. No matter how well-written, there will always be room for interpretation.

1