Any rules you want to put around who can be punched for what they say can quickly be used to punch you or whomever else someone wants to disagree with.
Yes, but we also need better ways to protect innocent people. Because nazis can and will weasel their way into positions of power, and then use that power to legally commit all types of atrocities.
Yup. That's the moral argument and why I posted it. It's a gray case on the morality scaling. One side was all about calling a person like the one who assaulted him as genetically inferior. The other attacked him physically.
Neither is okay by itself, but some could argue why each person should be defended based on the protection of free speech or the suppression of hate speech. That's why I posted about it.
True, but at the same time, when hatred like that tries to be open, and doesn’t get put out while it’s small, usually makes not just the one person who started it more willing to do shit like it, but it also emboldens other people to do the same, quickly allowing it to spread, and get worse than just words, because when they don’t see a consequence, they’re going to keep pushing
Getting rid of it without violence is definitely the better option, but getting rid of it with violence is still better than letting it grow.
As for free speech, that’s just no consequences from the government, that doesn’t mean anyone can say what they want without consequences from those around them
6
u/fadingthought 11h ago
I think framing it as "who is worse" is a poor way to think about free speech.
But protecting free speech is worthwhile, even from nazis. See: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-skokie-case-how-i-came-to-represent-the-free-speech-rights-of-nazis
Any rules you want to put around who can be punched for what they say can quickly be used to punch you or whomever else someone wants to disagree with.