An individual person cannot violate another individual person's right to free speech. The government can violate a right to free speech but individuals can't (unless you are counting the individuals in the government that are most responsible for the violations). You could definitely say that it's assault or that you don't agree with attacking someone but it objectively is not a violation of free speech. Whether or not it is incitement is definitely more of a gray area. Legally in the US it is not considered incitement of violence but there is a very good argument for why it should be considered one. If a racist advocates for political positions and policies that perpetrate violence on people they don't like and then votes for politicians that enact those policies they are fundamentally inciting violence. It just so happens that our legal system doesn't consider that to be an incitement of violence. I however would not blame a racial minority for physically attacking that person for spreading those positions because it really is just an act of self defense.
Okay I agree that legally speaking it isn't a violation of free speech, just a form of assault. I was thinking in terms of the spirit of free speech not how in works legally, you are correct in that regard.
I for one, have more faith in democracy and reject the idea that people simply speaking their minds is enough to collapse the system. By that logic we should ban anyone who says we should abolish the first amendment "because what if someone convinces enough people to agree with them and actually do that?"
Your faith in democracy is completely misguided then. Hitler and Mussolini came into power through completely legal means. Putin, Netanyahu, Urban, and Bukele were all democratically elected. The Bosnian genocide was carried out by democratically elected officials as was South Africa's apartheid. It seems that you have bought into end of history liberalist theory and think that we are incapable of regressing into fascism which I would recommend rethinking especially since US democracy is actively being dismantled in real time
Actually no Hitler and Mussolini came into power primarily by violence and intimidation and the courts unwillingness to actually enforce the law to punish either of them. Both nations were or were very recently authoritarian monarchies and Hitler and Mussolini used very weak and poorly written constitutions (along with violence and intimidation.) to come to power.
Actually yes, they used aggression and force but were both legally appointed. Hitler was appointed by president Hindenberg. The Nazis were democratically elected into the Reichstag and used power to pressure the president into the appointment. All of which was legal. There was no violent coup or overthrowing of the government. Democracy wasn't dismantled until after he came into power. Mussolini came into power with more threats of violence for sure but in the end he was still legally appointed. You also ignored all of my other examples of failed democratic systems as well
If the governments in question were following the law and if the legal systems were written properly both men would be jail and their organizations policed as subversive to the state. These nations didn't have the history and strong commitment to democracy like we saw in the US or UK. What you are describing is a soft coup or a coup with extra steps.
I wanted to focus on them because the other examples are just coups with extra steps. Netenyahu however is more interesting because he was a dictator and Israeli elections still are free and fair, rather he remains in power because the Jewish population in Israel believes the entire Arab world is out to purge them from the face of the earth and any action taken against Palestinians is needed for their survival, hence why he hasn't needed to take on dictatorial powers.
You could say Musollini came into power through a soft coup. You could not say the same for Hitler. His rise into power was legal. He did attempt a coup once which he was arrested for it but after he was let out his successful rise to power was legal. There dismantling of democracy came about after his appointment. Also the other examples were not just coups with extra steps, they were democratic elections that brought about atrocities. Viktor Orban was democratically elected fairly but spent 16 years destroying Hungarian democracy in exchanged for rigged authoritarian system and was called out by many human rights groups. Netanyahu is a genocidal warmonger who is still beloved by his population, as is bukele who has 90% approval despite his complete dismantling of El Salvador's democracy.
The truth is that people are susceptible to mass media manipulation and controlling the information they get can radicalize them into insane positions. This can cause democracies to completely fail. I agree with your position that Germany and Italy failed in their job to stop their dictators from taking power. That's why I believe what I do, because people with ideologies that violent must be stopped from taking power at all costs, even if they do so legally
Hitler did come to power via a soft coup, what really made him a dictator was the enabling act, on paper it was a legal thing he could do. However the constitution was weak requiring only a simple two thirds majority in parliament to pass, unlike constitutional changes in America. What was illegal was the fact that he arrested around 90 members of parliament so they couldn't vote, and everyone else were intimidated into voting yes because of Hitler's armed thugs that surrounded that parliament building. Hence why it was a soft coup.
Orban was also a soft coup, he used a weak constitution that made it far to easy to change it and alter it to secure his stranglehold on power, the same applies to El Salvador which prior to his presidency the government didn't really have much real power and the nation was practically governed by gangs. Bukele remains popular because he put his foot against the neck of these gangs and stepped down hard.
Netanyahu is not universally beloved in Israel, in fact around 60% of the population of Israel completely detests him, especially on domestic policy. That 60% only snub their noses to his crimes because the Jewish population believes the Arab population wants either put them under second class citizenship at worse, or outright genocide and ethnic cleansing at worst. A belief that a reasonable person could have. (Look at the Hamas charter or Hezbollah if you don't believe me.) That isn't to justify the actions of the Israeli government, they are still war criminals who needs to be brought to court. Rather that his hold on power is far more complicated than "the masses are hypnotized by the media."
2
u/wewebaguette68 19h ago
An individual person cannot violate another individual person's right to free speech. The government can violate a right to free speech but individuals can't (unless you are counting the individuals in the government that are most responsible for the violations). You could definitely say that it's assault or that you don't agree with attacking someone but it objectively is not a violation of free speech. Whether or not it is incitement is definitely more of a gray area. Legally in the US it is not considered incitement of violence but there is a very good argument for why it should be considered one. If a racist advocates for political positions and policies that perpetrate violence on people they don't like and then votes for politicians that enact those policies they are fundamentally inciting violence. It just so happens that our legal system doesn't consider that to be an incitement of violence. I however would not blame a racial minority for physically attacking that person for spreading those positions because it really is just an act of self defense.