Yes, but I'm not sending one side money. I'm merely refusing to believe that the State should prohibit it from expressing its views. Are you suggesting that I should support such state action against *anyone* whose aims I disagree with?
> CB: So, are you saying that you support fascist speech that might succeed in
> achieving its purpose of winning fascism ?
The question is academic as no such speech exists in any country I
would feel qualified to discuss.
>
> > 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.
I think you're turning the burden of proof backward here, but what the
hell. The same interest we have in protecting anybody else's right to
express their political views.
>
> 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.
Holy Moses. Racist speech should be banned because somewhere, down the line, possibly decades later, it might inspire someone to kill? I'm just ... appalled.
> Nazism is conspiracy to commit murder , period.
Again with the grand statements. Most of the "Nazis" I've known (and I've known a few) have been armchair Nazis who'd be hard pressed to murder a fish supper. You are seriously overestimating the capacity of these morons to achieve their ultimate goal. Obviously there are some who are capable of limited but still dangerous actions in that regard and these people should be closely monitored - I would argue it's much easier to do so when they are allowed to spew their bile (thereby identifying themselves) than when hate speech laws drive them underground.