> CB; How is it not supporting them ? It helps them forward their aims.
Whether or not it actually does, there is an important difference between "I support them" and "something I do has the latent effect of supporting them". Otherwise you would have a completely contradictory situation in which every group whose views I *don't* think should be censored, I thereby support. I would have to support the pro- and anti-choice movements at the same time, which is neither possible nor accurate.
^^^^^ CB: I had responded to your saying "Supporting their right to freedom of speech is not the same as supporting *them*."
If you sent money to pro- and anti-choice movements at the same time, wouldn't that be supporting both at the same time ? If you support fascists' right to speak and you support non-fascists right to speak at the same time, then you are supporting fascists' right to speak.
Supporting fascists' right to speak is not being a fascist ,but it is support for them , even if as a latent effect. Most of the support for fascists in the countries where it took power was latent. For bad people to succeed, it takes good ones to give them latent support.
> CB: But if you only support speech that you say will be unsuccessful, then
you really aren't supporting freedom of speech.
Well, I didn't say that I do only support such speech.
^^^^ CB: So, are you saying that you support fascist speech that might succeed in achieving its purpose of winning fascism ?
^^^^
> We have no interest in protecting fascist speech if it doesn't succeed
causing action.
Why not? You keep making these grand statements, as if they were obviously true, when they aren't.
^^^^ CB: Ok tell me what interest we have in protecting fascists making abstract speeches that don't effect anybody else.
^^^^
> The law of free speech has a number of exceptions in the U.S. -like
shouting "fire" , FALSELY, in a crowed theatre. There is no freedom of
speech to do that. It is an exception. Similarly, we can make an exception
to freedom of
> speech to advocate Nazism.
Others have probably addressed this (I don't have the time at the moment to go through all the emails), but the Supremes have long held that the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre analogy applies only to speech which is so inextricably linked with action that the two are, practically speaking, impossible to separate. You aren't allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre because a panic would just about *inevitably* result from it - there would not be time for people to consider the accuracy of such an exclamation. Advocating Nazism, as a general rule, does not have those kind of immediate and unpreventable effects.
^^^ CB: "Clear and present danger" and "imminent lawless action" are the legal terms you are looking for.
Actually, neo-Nazis and KKK's have killed Jews and Black people, et al. and are incited to do it by the speeches of their leaders. The fact that it is not immediately after a given speech, but may take years to germinate in one racist murderer's mind doesn't make a difference to the person killed. Also, the fact that they haven't killed thousands is not a reason to give it a pass.
Nazism is conspiracy to commit murder , period. Whether now or later, the purpose of Nazism, KKK'ism, is murder. Both doctrines are explicit in this. Wearing a picture of Hitler means you advocate killing people based on race or ethnicity. In fact, the purpose of Nazism and/or KKKism is genocide, as defined by the UN Convention against genocide.
Then the harm of actually fascism in state power is _so_ great that we are justified in nipping Nazism in the bud,even way before it is imminently leading to fascist state power and action. In other words, I don't agree with the Supreme Court's limiting it to _imminent_ lawless action when it comes to fascism (and my JD is just as good as the Supreme Court Justices' ).