Just how many rights are we willing to, or can we, "reason" away before we have none left to give?

I wonder...

Mornin

Somebody famous in our nation's history once said:
"The man who gives up liberty in the name of security deserves neither." (paraphrased)

More recently, several less-famous people claim that: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

I think the most important phrase in the original post is "impressionable [young] people". (Though in the case of Michael Regener and others, I'm not sure they count as "young" people.) People will always find ways to do stupid, nonsensical, and harmful things not only because of their personal beliefs, but just because other people are doing them. I reference you to the latest "hacktivist" movements, where because one small group of individuals decided to take a stand, suddenly it's the thing to do if you have any programming skills and an agenda. (And you may not need to have an actual agenda.)

Even if words are intended to cause harm, it takes a person to act on those words. Just consider the pure vitriol we hear all the time from "reasonable" and "upstanding" political or religious debates hosted on public television. Further consider the presidential speeches encouraging and promoting war on organizations or countries. (ALL presidential speeches, not just those of your opposite party.) Are those not words spoken with the intent to cause harm?

We need a little less suppression of speech, and a little more conscientious objecting, methinks.

What if I told you freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. In other words, people agree with it until they themselves get offended. Very complex world we live in.

Yes, maybe, probably....The first thing you have to do is figure out exact meaning..."The Confounding of Language"...I think it was first started by god himself ...Some of the worst, most detrimental hate speeches I ever heard came, not from musicians and artists, from politicians....EDIT ALERT...and preachers!....

I suppose it's a matter of the laws in each nation and how far they go with hate crime legislation. I know that in U.S. it is illegal to be / have been a member of NDSAP (can be refused entry or if found to have lied during immigration process be stripped of American citizenship and deported)

Germany goes further and has addressed Neo-Nazi music in the courts.

.............................................


German Court Sends Singer to Prison for Neo-Nazi Lyrics
December 23, 2003|Jeffrey Fleishman | Times Staff Writer

BERLIN — In the first case of its kind in Germany, a right-wing rock band was deemed a criminal organization and its lead singer was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for lyrics that venerate Nazism and incite racial hatred.

A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. The court ruled that Regener's band, Landser, is a threat to the country's Jews and millions of African and Muslim immigrants.

The band's bass player, Andre Moericke, and its drummer, Christian Wenndorff, were each sentenced to nearly two years' probation and ordered to perform 90 hours of community service. Founded in 1992 as the Final Solution, the band has been a favorite of neo-Nazis worldwide and a troubling voice of intolerance.

"This is the first time that a band has been found to be a criminal organization," said prosecutor Joachim Lampe.

The band members refer to themselves as "terrorists with electric guitars." Their lyrics are more intellectual than those of most bands of their ilk, but their agenda is just as blunt. "Let's get the enemy, bombs on Israel," go the words of one song. Another tune laments: "In the old days, Africa was wonderful/Now our white brothers stand with their backs against the wall."

Enacted after the Holocaust, this country's antidiscrimination laws are among the most stringent in the world. They forced Landser -- an old German word for foot soldier that was used during World War II -- to produce four of its albums outside the country. The recordings were advertised on the Internet and shipped by mail order to evade German authorities.

The band quickly became a symbol for far-right radicals, and its songs praised skinheads for a series of arsons and murders against Germany's immigrant communities in the late 1990s. Testifying at Landser's trial, Thorsten Heise, a prominent neo-Nazi, told the court that Regener's lyrics are "radical, a little bit more thoughtful, ironic and full of humor."


http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/23/world/fg-hate23


This very question was also subject of an article:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/should-neo-nazis-be-allowed-free-speech.html


Perhaps also making it more noticeable now

European neo-Nazis move to US for free speech

Somebody famous in our nation's history once said:
"The man who gives up liberty in the name of security deserves neither." (paraphrased)

More recently, several less-famous people claim that: "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

I think the most important phrase in the original post is "impressionable [young] people". (Though in the case of Michael Regener and others, I'm not sure they count as "young" people.) People will always find ways to do stupid, nonsensical, and harmful things not only because of their personal beliefs, but just because other people are doing them. I reference you to the latest "hacktivist" movements, where because one small group of individuals decided to take a stand, suddenly it's the thing to do if you have any programming skills and an agenda. (And you may not need to have an actual agenda.)

Even if words are intended to cause harm, it takes a person to act on those words. Just consider the pure vitriol we hear all the time from "reasonable" and "upstanding" political or religious debates hosted on public television. Further consider the presidential speeches encouraging and promoting war on organizations or countries. (ALL presidential speeches, not just those of your opposite party.) Are those not words spoken with the intent to cause harm?

We need a little less suppression of speech, and a little more conscientious objecting, methinks.

If you are so insecure in your opinions that opinions you find offensive can't be spoken, that's actually in argument in favor of more, not less, free speech. In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of speech. It says nothing about freedom of speech unless.....

To say I support freedom of speech, but.... is to say you don't support freedom of speech. The right to speak freely cannot coexist with a right to not be offended.

Actually many members od the NSDAP were given citizenship after WW2 some even brought in by our own government (Operation Paperclip), it's the ones who participated in war crimes were the ones denied.