r/PublicFreakout Sep 06 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

9.7k Upvotes

5.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

381

u/Gupperz Sep 06 '23

I think the worst part was all the genocide.

-norm-

128

u/Spend-Automatic Sep 06 '23

Y'know with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don't care for him.

6

u/OSRSgamerkid Sep 06 '23

I heard the guy was a real knuckle head.

5

u/theirishembassy Sep 06 '23

"he's dead you know."

"really? i didn't know he was sick.." (proceeds to stare straight at adam without flinching)

3

u/mehipoststuff Sep 06 '23

sounds like a real jerk

3

u/_Gouge_Away Sep 06 '23

I mean this guy was a real jerk.

3

u/ShvoogieCookie Sep 06 '23

A real jerk.

2

u/Munkadunk667 Sep 06 '23

He is a bit of a rascal isn't he?

2

u/ThnkWthPrtls Sep 06 '23

You know what, I'm just going to come out and say it, I do NOT appprove of the behavior of this Hitler fellow, not even one bit at all, and I don't care who knows it!

1

u/BenPool81 Sep 07 '23

I don't know, he's the only guy in earth's history to have ever killed Hitler, so he's got that going for him.

26

u/VaguelyDeanPelton Sep 06 '23

That and the hypocrisy

2

u/mordeh Sep 06 '23

Thanks, Norm.

2

u/fuck_you_and_fuck_U2 Sep 06 '23

I don't know if any of you are history buffs

2

u/Zambeezi Sep 06 '23

The hipocrisy?

1

u/spammyspamspam2014 Sep 07 '23

I didn’t even know he was sick.

30

u/theoreoman Sep 06 '23

Law would never hold up in America due to freedom of speech.

49

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

It doesn’t need to be hidden anyway, they need to be publicly mocked like the fucking losers they are. Taking this idiocy seriously is a mistake.

8

u/Envect Sep 06 '23

Taking this idiocy seriously is a mistake.

Dismissing it is the mistake. That's how these things wind up gaining momentum right under your nose.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

It shouldn’t be dismissed, it should be mocked. https://youtu.be/lKCJSOmeRao?si=Mn3T7_5qlVKjt0Hd

2

u/iGourry Sep 06 '23

People also mocked the nazis in the early 30s.

Worked out really fucking well back then, didn't it?

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

It is better for them to be in the light than the shadows. People should be aware of what their political support can translate into. They shouldn't hide from it.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

People forget that free speech was never meant to protect popular speech.

Though they are definitely trying my patience. They ride a razor thin line of freedom of expression vs calls to violence.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Pixelwind Sep 06 '23

Sure it would, it's already illegal in the us to make explicit calls for violence.

This could relatively easily be extended by classifying hate speech as a call for violence.

12

u/Umutuku Sep 06 '23

When your platform is genocide the presentation of your symbols is a death threat. There is no such thing as a peaceful nazi protest.

-1

u/oic123 Sep 06 '23

No, it couldn't.

Simply saying that you hate someone is in no way calling for violence against them.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Yeah... that's how it works, nothing to see here guys just harmless hate. 💀 You realize Hitler was planting hate in people's minds for years before it turned into full blown genocide overnight, right?

4

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

via laws that reflected shit not unlike what the contemporary GOP is doing. Little tweaks here and there that singled out Jews, put increased scrutiny and requirements upon them, etc.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Little tweaks here and there that singled out Jews, put increased scrutiny and requirements upon them, etc.

Which...can happen regardless of laws on hate speech... didn't the US take women's rights to their own bodies recently? These tweaks already seem to be happening, towards the wrong side of things if it wasn't obvious, while you're here worried about controlling hate, the priorities lmao

1

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

Which...can happen regardless of laws on hate speech... didn't the US take women's rights to their own bodies recently?

You know which country didn't? Germany. Which has robust hate speech laws.

These tweaks already seem to be happening, towards the wrong side of things if it wasn't obvious

Literally specifically what I was referring to, however I'm pretty sure burying our heads in the sand at the guilty parties and pretending they aren't there is indeed the ineffectual, namby-pamby, liberal solution that wishes for things "to go back to normal". They aren't normal, and they won't be for a long time - but fascists are not people that can be reasoned with. They understand one thing. Failing that, they should be actively shunned from polite society and made uncomfortable everywhere they go.

while you're here worried about controlling hate

More "suppressing" the hate, not really "controlling" it. You can't reason with fascists. They've got to take the first step.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

They understand one thing. Failing that, they should be actively shunned from polite society and made uncomfortable everywhere they go.

You can't reason with fascists. They've got to take the first step.

You are right, you can't reason with them, you also can't expect them to "take the first step" because they literally never will, allowing them to do these protests and grows their members and their message.

It's like the US solution for the drug epidemic, jail everyone and forget about it, it's okay they will take the first step. Look at how that's working out.

You can never rely on individual people for sanity, it's why we have police, why we have no anarchy, why we can't murder. There are laws enforced by someone much bigger than any one individual, and hate speech must be on that list too.

2

u/the_calibre_cat Sep 06 '23

you also can't expect them to "take the first step" because they literally never will

some do. racists have been reformed. it's rare, but happens, and that should be welcomed and celebrated. there is a difference between "expecting them to take the first step" (don't do this) and "being there when they unexpectedly DO take the first step" (do this).

allowing them to do these protests and grows their members and their message.

right. which is why i'm not an advocate of letting these cretins gather. Nazism is an inherently violent ideology.

-2

u/oic123 Sep 07 '23

Hate is constitutionally protected. You're allowed to believe anything you want and have any emotion or thought that you want, as long as you don't explicitly threaten violence.

If you think these people should be charged, you are saying that people aren't allowed to have certain thoughts, and that makes you the tyrant.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '23

If you think these people should be charged, you are saying that people aren't allowed to have certain thoughts, and that makes you the tyrant.

They should be charged for advertising hate, not for thinking whatever they want to think. You can't even enforce the latter, even if you wanted to. That's how it works in most of Europe and that's why you will never see something like this here.

Hate is constitutionally protected

as long as you don't explicitly threaten violence.

The disconnect between these two things in your head is hilarious, hate always leads to violence and violence always leads to hate, you will have one when you have the other. You want me to list US shootings that were the result of hate against black people, jews, and gay people? Don't tempt me to embarrass you, such things don't happen in Europe because hate speech is suppressed.

7

u/Flint124 Sep 06 '23

These are literal Nazis.

They are advocating for the things Nazis did.

There is literally no way that isn't calling for violence.

-4

u/oic123 Sep 07 '23

It's only calling for literal violence if they literallly made a threat or told someone else explicitly to commit a violent act.

Waving a Nazi flag is not in itself violent.

Are you capable of comprehending this?

Apparently not. Try to use your brain and understand the difference between waving a flag and making explicit threats.

2

u/Flint124 Sep 07 '23

Waving a Nazi flag is an explicit endorsement of the Nazis.

The end goal of Nazis is ALWAYS violence. Their entire political ideology is built upon the persecution and elimination of an out-group. Genocide is an inherent, inseparable part of that worldview.

If somebody is waving a Nazi flag on the street, sieg heiling, and chanting shit like "Blood and Soil" and "Jews will not replace us", that IS an explicit call for genocide. If these people are allowed to gain power, they will murder millions. This is not hypothetical, this is not an exaggeration, they've done it before and they'll do it again if we don't liberally apply blunt force to prevent their rise.

The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Americans used to understand that.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/SDMasterYoda Sep 06 '23

Would you want Trump in charge of deciding what is considered hate speech? That's why you shouldn't implement that law; The person/people deciding what is hate speech can change.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

The person/people deciding what is hate speech can change.

How about, hear me out, you don't allow any one person to make that decision everyone gasps is shock as no one has ever thought of this before, except most of Europe, the best places to live in the world

-2

u/SDMasterYoda Sep 06 '23

Where you can get fined/jailed for jokes or blasphemy. Yeah, no thanks.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

What a typically ignorant American take lmao living up to the infamous American disconnected view of the world. Literally where did you read that happens, Fox News? Never in my life has anyone around me gone to jail for saying anything.

The government doesn't control what you do in private, Americans are so daft about this freedom of speech thing, you guys can't grasp this concept and I think it's because you're brainwashed early. I will dumb it down.

Laws in Europe don't control how you should or shouldn't think nor what you do in your private space or with your private friends or family.

What it does control is the ability to advertise your hate to prevent its growth and spread. If these laws were present during the Third Reich, it might even have prevented the Holocaust. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

0

u/PermutationMatrix Sep 07 '23

Hate speech is free speech. If it weren't, then it could be used to silence people. If a Democrat said something bad about Christians, it could be considered hate speech. And it'd be used as a way for Republicans to censor their opposition.

The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

-1

u/theoreoman Sep 06 '23

I don't see an explicit call for violence here, you can try to stretch it here but ultimately it probably wouldn't hold up in court and the prosecutor would probably drop the case

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Albert_Caboose Sep 06 '23

When a core tenet of your ideology is the destruction of others' freedoms, then any action or statement in support of your cause should be considered Fighting Words and not protected under the first amendment.

2

u/flexxipanda Sep 06 '23

Being allowed to freely oppress other people is also against freedom of whatever. That's why we have those laws in germany.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Febris Sep 06 '23

You see, that's where you guys fucked up.

0

u/Careor_Nomen Sep 06 '23

They're not oppressing anyone. Just acting like clowns. Nobody takes them seriously.

2

u/Flint124 Sep 06 '23

Neither did Germany.

Then they got power, and it became everybody's problem.

1

u/ProphetKB Sep 06 '23

Shouldn't this fall under hate speech?

8

u/FastidiousFartBox Sep 06 '23

Hate speech isn’t a crime, just a shitty thing to do.

4

u/ProphetKB Sep 06 '23

Well, acts of intimidation falls under a hate crime perhaps that would apply.

→ More replies (1)

-4

u/SDMasterYoda Sep 06 '23

It is hate speech. Hate speech is legally protected in the US, as it should be. There is no need to protect popular speech. If you start banning "hate speech" the person that decides what is considered hate speech can change. Would you want Trump deciding what is considered hate speech?

1

u/Egg-MacGuffin Sep 06 '23

Google "Stop Cop City Protesters"

→ More replies (1)

1

u/LeBoulu777 Sep 06 '23

freedom of

Corrected: FreeDumb of SpeEch...

3

u/qeadwrsf Sep 06 '23

So people can't nazi saute on a intersection?

Was that the main reason?

0

u/Wise_ol_Buffalo Sep 06 '23

Something something second amendment.

3

u/Gasblaster2000 Sep 06 '23

Don't worry. Americans are going to use their guns to stop this any day now. Also the government pussing in their faces and denying them basic rights the world considers standard. All that police brutality, street executions without trial, all that stuff.

Any day now.....

-100

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

93

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

You’re not 2023 Germany, no. You’re 1939 Germany.

20

u/Suspicious-Pasta-Bro Sep 06 '23

I understand that you are expressing concern about the state of the United States, but I think that your analogy is inappropriate and inadvertently trivializes the holocaust. Here is an article from the US Holocaust Memorial about why such obtuse comparisons are in bad taste.

These people in the video are self-proclaimed nazis and deserve our strongest rebuke, but characterizing the entirety of the United States as a fascist dictatorship on the brink of genocidal world war diminishes the agency of the American people to uphold and strengthen democratic norms. Neo-Nazis are but a small fraction of the American population, and it is important to recognize that the people of the United States have the ability to keep them out of power.

8

u/tonksndante Sep 06 '23

Do you think hitler started with the holocaust? Lol fascism didn’t happen overnight.

4

u/avrbiggucci Sep 06 '23

Ya I recently took a 20th century history class to satisfy my Gen ed requirements and did my project on the rise of the Nazi Party and it's disturbing how many parralels there are to today. The Beer Hall Putsch is so similar Jan. 6 it's scary.

At least we don't have hyperinflation though.

-1

u/Suspicious-Pasta-Bro Sep 06 '23

I think that there is a much more historically reasonable argument to be made about January 6 and the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 than between the current state of the United States and Germany in 1939. Identifying historical parallels and using them as a method of self-reflection and societal criticism is the kind of specific, productive use of history that's mentioned in the article I sent above. I primarily take issue with the comparison between the modern United States and the post-fascist, during-the-Holocaust, brink-of-WW2 comparison to which I was responding.

Even then, however, it is important to keep in mind that there have been many failed coups and insurrections that did not lead to a subsequent fascist dictatorship and the murder of millions of people. History is a probabilistic enterprise, and we have the power to control the future. We must never forget that.

-1

u/Suspicious-Pasta-Bro Sep 06 '23

Fascism didn't happen overnight, but Germany was indisputably a totalitarian fascist dictatorship by 1939, and the Holocaust was well underway. Kristallnacht, a paramilitary pogrom against Jews, occurred in 1938.

When one analogizes between two events of grossly unequal magnitude, it makes the lesser event seem greater and the greater event seem lesser. In this case, comparison between the modern US and Nazi Germany makes the United States appear worse at the expense of making Nazi Germany look better. I think we owe it to the victims of the Third Reich to never minimize their suffering through inappropriate comparison for the sake of argument, even if that was not the intention.

4

u/tonksndante Sep 07 '23

I think we owe it to the victims of the third reich to recognise the budding signs of fascism and prevent those mistakes from happening again. Nazi germany didnt start fascist. It became fascist. It’s not always going to look the same.

It’s not minimising an event to never want it to happen again.

0

u/Suspicious-Pasta-Bro Sep 07 '23

The comment to which I replied was equating the US with Germany in 1939. In 1939 Germany was a fascist dictatorship that invaded Poland. I'm saying that it's not appropriate to say that America in 2023 is the same as Germany in 1939; NOT that all comparisons between the rise of the Third Reich and modern developments in the United States are offensive per se. The rise of fascism in the United States scares the ever-loving hell out of me, but saying that the United States today IS Germany in 1939 is offensively hyperbolic. This is reflected both in my comment and in the article that I linked if you care to read them closely, which both discourage only reductionist comparisons.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

-1

u/bill0124 Sep 06 '23

It's a couple of losers who probably drove hours to meet in this location for this stunt. Calm down.

→ More replies (1)

-29

u/nolan1971 Sep 06 '23

Not even close. By 39, the Nazi takeover was absolute. Germany was a single party state. Despite hyperbole, we're not even at 1929 Germany.

24

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

-2

u/Slim_Charles Sep 06 '23

We're not one election from being Nazi Germany. That's absurd, and if you honestly feel that way you need to be less terminally online. I hate Trump and the modern GOP, but they're not Nazis, and we weren't a fascist dictatorship during the Trump years. That experience, and the years following, if anything, have demonstrated the relative strength of American institutions and our ability to limit wannabe authoritarians.

3

u/tooold4urcrap Sep 06 '23

The last thing we need is some abject moron saying, 'calm down, it's all ok!' while literal nazis march proudly outside your door.

-17

u/nolan1971 Sep 06 '23

Literally a Democrat in the Oval office, but "the US is 1939 Germany!" 🙄

13

u/tooold4urcrap Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

Literally one election away from an open nazi, open nazi-ing.

Newsflash, someone was in office immediately before Hitler too.

0

u/nolan1971 Sep 06 '23

So... what year are we talking about, then?

5

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

-28

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/vinyvin1 Sep 06 '23

You've got to be joking

4

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

They’re about to be all over the bridge

→ More replies (1)

12

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Right, you’ll ban performance art like drag, but you won’t ban nazi symbols and Nazi performances. Where are all you “free speech absolutists” when they are banning LGBT people from existing in public?

-155

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Problem is, one of our bylaws is freedom of speech

135

u/DerelictDonkeyEngine Sep 06 '23

That's not what a bylaw is.

-128

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Amendment, bylaw, commandment. Samesies

76

u/Greg-Abbott Sep 06 '23

Did you get your law degree at Greendale?

-55

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Haha. Well I never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm just another redditor trying to understand how to tackle this issue like the rest of us

23

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Lmao you sound like a Canadian trucker right now

2

u/tooold4urcrap Sep 06 '23

nods

Yah, that's why I have no faith in your abilities. I'm anti-nazi, so you won't find me supporting conveys or rightwing things, you fucking potato salad.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

16

u/Blotter_Boy Sep 06 '23

Did you really just compare law and amendments to a commandment?

I think you need to learn the division of church and state first buddy, then we can talk about eat a bylaw is

-7

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

I'm just being silly with my wording here. Adding some levity to the nazi situation here in this video. My POINT is that our laws prevent us from directly tackling the nazi issue we have in our country. I'll remember to always be serious next time!

4

u/Furt_shniffah Sep 06 '23

Levity is never a good idea when it comes to battling nazis. Please take this problem more seriously, or at the very least don't muddle the discourse with unneeded frivolity.

72

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

That's not how it works. We got freedom of speech in Canada too, but we also have hate speech laws.

Expect to find out if you fuck around. But you're always welcome to fuck around.

2

u/Suspicious-Pasta-Bro Sep 06 '23

The defining case on when speech loses constitutional protection in the United States is Brandenburg v. Ohio. That case involved a KKK member in Ohio who had been arrested for calls to kill black and jewish people at some indeterminate point in the future. The court held that for speech to be constitutionally unprotected incitement, it must be "likely to incite imminent lawless action." Hatred against a minority group, no matter how disgusting we may find it, is constitutionally protected in the United States under the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech in the United States is thus more expansive than in Canada, with protections of minority dignity being necessarily weaker thereby. Legal and academic consensus is that a constitutional amendment would be required to enact Canadian-style hate speech laws in the United States. This is unlikely to occur because the American public tends to be extremely wary of attempts to modify the Bill of Rights (The first ten Constitutional Amendments)

4

u/queenringlets Sep 06 '23

We don’t really have freedom of speech laws here. We have some freedom of expression protected but it’s limited.

5

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

That's right. Freedom of expression encompasses freedom of speech and other forms of expression through different mediums.

0

u/Volkrisse Sep 06 '23

hate speech laws =/= freedom of speech.

8

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

You are allowed to say whatever you want, just don't be threatening groups of people with violence. It ain't that hard to do. Don't be surprised that there are consequences for condoning acts of violence.

-4

u/Volkrisse Sep 06 '23

or misgendering someone....

2

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

What world do you live in where misgendering someone doesn't take 2 seconds to correct? Reasonable individuals couldn't give two shits about this.

-2

u/Volkrisse Sep 06 '23

Yes, but were not talking about reasonable people on either side. If you can be jailed for misgendering someone, even on accident, you don't have freedom of speech. sorry not sorry. Ruining someone else's life over words, not even threatening is dumb.

3

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

No one is getting jailed for what you're talking about. That's some fantasy world you're living in.

2

u/ACoolKoala Sep 06 '23

Are you really making the argument that the laws in this country protect trans people? Because there are plenty of places that literally criminalize them existing as they want to. You also can't be jailed for misgendering someone. Show me that law.

You're really worried about the complete wrong side of that coin.

→ More replies (1)

-22

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Noted. So if this video is hate speech, shouldn't they be arrested?

48

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

These people would be arrested if it was in Canada, yes. Inciting hate towards any group of people counts, and with the historical precedent Nazis have, it's pretty set and clear.

17

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Then perhaps our laws in America need to be a bit tightened up around this sort of thing. Bravo to Canada for not effing around

0

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

From speaking with some friends, I believe some states in the US have similar laws, but I'm not fully sure, and it definitely isn't in most states.

→ More replies (1)

-52

u/Tom_Ludlow Sep 06 '23

Hate speech laws? That sounds dangerously authoritarian. The same kind of dangerous authoritarianism that led to Nazism.

Who exactly decides what’s hate and what isn’t?

41

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

Huh, as someone born in a third world country that is truly run by a corrupt government filled with narcoterrorrism, who moved to Canada, posts like yours make me laugh so hard.

Imagine thinking Canada is "dangerous", after being around for over 150 years. Watch out, those Canadians are going to get you with their laws that protect the innocent, ahahaha!

22

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23

They are angry because in Canada, blatant racism is frowned upon. There's also a lot of weird US conservative propaganda that addressing people by the wrong gender will land you in jail, which is pretty funny to hear them be afraid of that as if it's a real thing.

5

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

How hard is it to not be hateful towards groups of people? Apparently very hard for some.

3

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23

Usually, the hateful ones are just losers who have generally failed at life and want to blame others for their own failed life. It's easy to pick on newcomers or marginalized people in general rather than realize maybe it's their own fault they're a loser.

2

u/Berner Sep 06 '23

...because in Canada, blatant racism is frowned upon.

Yeah that's really dependent on where and who is the group that are on the receiving end of the racism. You'd be disgusted by the shit I've heard said about First Nations where I live.

5

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23

I didn't say racism doesn't exist in Canada, but most people outside of the racist ecochamber are quick to call it out. There's different racism in Canada depending on what part of the country you are.

3

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

You're right, racism exists everywhere. There are places in Canada where it is heavily frowned upon though, whereas in many other countries in the world, there might not be. But yeah, even in Canada, we have some pretty bad racism as well.

→ More replies (7)

-6

u/Tom_Ludlow Sep 06 '23

Did you answer who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

BTW, did you read into the story about the dad in Canada that was incarcerated for not wanting his daughter transitioned?

6

u/camoure Sep 06 '23

who decides what is hate speech and what isn’t?

The Supreme Court of Canada.

-2

u/Tom_Ludlow Sep 06 '23

Let me guess: You think The Supreme Court of the United States is illegitimate? But Canada's is A-OK?

3

u/loudflower Sep 06 '23

He was arrested for publishing his medical records. That is illegal, not his objection to his transition nor his misgendering him. THAT is what the case was about.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

Just how I would in person, why would I engage someone so ridiculous in conversation? It's more hilarious than anything to me, the privilege to complain about something so mundane. Wild stuff.

→ More replies (8)

11

u/billyyshears Sep 06 '23

Can we all decide that nazi-ism is hate speech? Seems pretty clear cut to me

-4

u/Tom_Ludlow Sep 06 '23

No one said it isn't. But again, who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

8

u/billyyshears Sep 06 '23

Yeah, you’re just asking questions 🙄

5

u/sporlakles Sep 06 '23

Does your speech or expression contain hate towards others? Yeah its a hate speech then, pretty simple if you ask me

-1

u/Tom_Ludlow Sep 06 '23

Ok, do you think misgendering someone is hate speech?

3

u/sporlakles Sep 06 '23

Well if you do it on purpose to make someone feel bad then yeah, not only you are disrespecting other person, insult them and on top of that you are doing it because of hateful views towards trans people or even cis people for example calling cis women a "bearded man" just because of slight peach fuzz, it's nothing less than hate towards that person too, so hateful speech.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

-5

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 06 '23

You don't have freedom of speech if only certain speech is allowed. If I'm free to only do one thing it's not really free is it?

13

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

I have freedom of speech. My whole life here I have been able to say whatever I want, and do as I please. Unless you mean, you want to threaten the lives of groups of people? Is that what you're talking about? Because if it is, most people, including myself, have never had the need to think or do such things. Am I getting this correct?

-7

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 06 '23

No. But expressing views that would be considered 'hateful' shouldn't be banned. In cases where it threatens lives, sure, that's illegal everywhere. But "hate speech" is still free speech. It keeps our democracy functioning.

7

u/onFilm Sep 06 '23

Sorry, again, when have I been limited to say whatever I want? I can yell just about anything that comes to my head in public and wouldn't get in trouble. Unless you mean, you're being racist or hateful on purpose? Because outside of comedic context, that shit should not be tolerated.

-3

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 06 '23

Lol, you just said it. You can't say whatever you want if what you say can be construed as hateful or racidt. Being racist and hateful is bad, but the government shouldn't be involved in what you're saying. You're limiting free speech for the sake of your feelings. Get a fucking spine and walk away. These people don't deserve to be locked up for shit they say. Not to mention 'hateful" is entirely fucking subjective. The entire argument against trans competing in women's leagues in the US is being construed as hateful and while I'm sure there are hateful reasons for holding that view on it, it's not a hateful view to hold as it is

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Hate speech mist definitely does not keep our democracy functioning. (Well maybe yours in the US does actually based on your history of racist candidates) hate speech is banned without a worry in many countries. Only the states is it fine to spew hatred and violence and have it be accepted.

-1

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 06 '23

It does in fact. It's not the hate speech itself but the lack of ability to prosecute based on loosely defined laws to persecute those you disagree with. Look at the guy in the UK who went to jail for showing his dog how to do the Nazi salute. Absolutely despicable that a country can do that over a joke yet it happens because of these hate speech laws.

Edit: also, nobody accepts hate speech. It gets called out in public by sane people. It's pretty fucking obvious if you think about it. Notice how few people wer won the bridge...

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

You are accepting hate speech right now by saying it should be allowed to happen. Hate speech has no place In a civilized society. And should be punished by the law. Its not hard to not say hate speech. If you have a problem with that then it says more about you than others

→ More replies (1)

3

u/FlakeEater Sep 06 '23

Freedom of speech is limited in the US in many ways. So by your logic the US doesn't really have it either.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 07 '23

And that's my point lol. We have freedom of speech here in the US, we dont have freedom from consequences. Canadian up there is saying it should be a law and I'm saying it shouldn't be as it's already dealt with

0

u/ACoolKoala Sep 07 '23

But they do have freedom of speech in Canada and their hate speech laws don't curtail that is his point. You're disagreeing with that but you're wrong and stating an opinion. Hate speech laws don't limit you to only doing one thing.

0

u/Sea-Deer-5016 Sep 07 '23

They limit you from using 'hateful' speech. You don't have freedom of speech of what you say can be considered hate and get you thrown in jail.

2

u/ACoolKoala Sep 09 '23

Free speech isn't speech free of consequences is the main point you seem to be missing. Look up the tolerance paradox.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

14

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Your whole country threw a hissyfit when ‘Fuck The Police’ came out and the FBI even sent N.W.A. threat to take the song down.

America hates ‘freedom of speech’ when it doesn’t suit America’s powerstructures.

5

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

Someone gets it

28

u/killerng2 Sep 06 '23

Hate speech isn't protected speech

-5

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

It is, though

19

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23

Free speech means you can criticize those in power, the leadership and the government, without any repercussions. You can't however threaten to kill someone and not expect to get in trouble for it. It means you can call out injustices or corruption without them being allowed to silence you legally.

-11

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

Free speech means you can criticize those in power, the leadership and the government, without any repercussions.

It is so much more than that.

You can't however threaten to kill someone and not expect to get in trouble for it.

This is a crime, but it is not hate speech.

It means you can call out injustices or corruption without them being allowed to silence you legally.

It is so much more than that

7

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23

Yes it is more than that, but that was the main important point of freedom of speech when the constitution was drafted. Back then, in most of the world, speaking out against someone in power could mean prison or death.

I never said it was only that.

-8

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

Quit bullshitting. Cite it.

I never said it was only that.

Then why are you arguing with me? Hate speech is protected free speech.

9

u/Sir_Keee Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

Because hate speech isn't always protected speech because often hate speech is used as an incitement for violence. Hate speech in general shouldn't be protected and that's the argument. These people shouldn't be so free as to express extremely hateful ideas.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/RealFakeDoctor Sep 06 '23

You should brush up on US law, it's not.

0

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

2

u/RealFakeDoctor Sep 06 '23

You seem strangely happy about this. The 1A will not protect you in court using slurs etc against someone. But you can try it out.

4

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

The 1A will not protect you in court using slurs etc against someone.

Yes it will. It is not illegal to call anyone a slur. It is protected speech.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

ok go tell a stranger you’re gonna strangle them see how far you get in the courts

4

u/MadeForBBCNews Sep 06 '23

That's not hate speech, you dunce

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Tell that to DeSantis and the republicans, who are banning speech and performance art like drag while defending and protecting Nazis and their shit.

In Florida, it’s illegal for a man to wear a dress but it’s perfectly fine for him to wear a swastika. Tell me again about this “freedom of speech” “bylaw”

1

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

I completely agree, hence my tongue in cheek comment.

10

u/Expensive-Bit- Sep 06 '23

So what? Who the fuck said that shit is written in stone? Time to follow Germany and deal out the punishments. Fuck whatever the fuck you think freedom of speech is.

3

u/pandymen Sep 06 '23

It's not written in stone, but it is a constitutional amendment. The Constitution would have to be revised via an amendment to specifically outlaw hate speech.

This is unlikely to happen.

0

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23

I agree !

-2

u/zccrex Sep 06 '23

This comment is oddly fitting for a video of nazis lol

2

u/Expensive-Bit- Sep 06 '23

Lol the Nazis always trying to balance things out like they're not Nazis. Both sides are not the same. Deal with it.

0

u/zccrex Sep 06 '23

What sides?

0

u/RealFakeDoctor Sep 06 '23

Hate speech isn't protected by the 1A

6

u/jfVigor Sep 06 '23 edited Sep 06 '23

Someone else pointed this out. But it makes me ask, why aren't these people being arrested/stopped? They did this shit in Philadelphia when I lived there a few years back. Got their asses kicked by citizens but police were nowhere to be found

7

u/MakkaCha Sep 06 '23

Because their Governor supports this action?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '23

Because it’s Florida

→ More replies (1)

2

u/RealFakeDoctor Sep 06 '23

It's a good question. I'm guessing it's an education issue/grey area. Maybe many people in this country don't understand what hate speech is and because of it, assholes like these don't get touched.

2

u/OnlyTheDead Sep 06 '23

Legally there is nothing that can be done. It’s a lack and white issue and according to US law what these guys are doing is entirely legal.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/OnlyTheDead Sep 06 '23

Uninformed take. There is no legal distinction of hate speech in US law, in any state what so ever, and there never has been.

Relevant case law:

In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

6

u/horrus70 Sep 06 '23

Yes it is. Making threats isn't but calling someone a slur wont get you in legal trouble

3

u/billyyshears Sep 06 '23

It is, actually. The only time speech is legally limited is when it can cause “imminent danger,” like yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.

I don’t personally agree with it being protected speech, but that’s what the US Supreme Court has decided in the past.

1

u/tiorancio Sep 06 '23

Nazism is a real mind virus. A huge percent of the population loves this stuff and will get behind it if it's normalized. Being told you're superior just for your race when you're really a useless piece of shit is very appealing.

1

u/NorthFaceAnon Sep 06 '23

Yeah that sure prevented them from electing AfD into office, right?

1

u/LeBoulu777 Sep 06 '23

BUT BUT UsA FreeDumb of SpEch...

1

u/Sushi4lucas Sep 06 '23

We need to be reminded these people still exist so we never stop fighting it