^^^ CB: No, only fascistic racists
^^^^
> 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.
^^^^ CB:I admit that my discussion here is hyperlogical. It is only because I have been thinking this through for twenty-five years , and I discovered some interesting things about pressing the logic fully. This particular exchange between us is at the tailend of an earlier exchange. I don't think that it is likely that you would support fascist speech that might succeed in achieving its purpose of winning fascism. I take that as a given. If you really thought somebody might organize fascism based on speeches and rallies, you would probably support suppressing it . I don't know.
The hyperlogical point is there are two possible outcomes of fascist speeches or any speeches. They either effect their goal or they do not. We can all pretty much agree that we don't want fascism or Nazism. So we would oppose fascist speech that was likely to achieve its goal.
What is hyperlogically "interesting" is the question, why do we have any interest in letting fascists speak even if their speech doesn't have the effect of creating a real and actual fascist movement ? I'd say we are indifferent to that. We don't have an interest against it, but we don't have any interest for it. (Pace :Brian and others, who might say that we have an interest in abstract thinking in the "abstract". I don't agree we have an interest in all thinking that is abstract, just because it is abstract, meaning having no connection to practice or activity or anything outside of the mind of the thinker. I'd say we only have interest in thinking that might have a positive impact in practice , in the world outside the thinker's head)
So, why not just prohibit any fascist speech. Because either way we either have a very important interest against the results ( fascism actually coming about ) or we are indifferent to the results ( fascists sitting around in a room talking to each other , but never practicing any 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.
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.
^^^^^ CB: A political view would be one that effects somebody else. It is not an example of an abstract speech that doesn't effect anybody else.
If you specify that this is a speech that will not affect anybody else, including me, then I have no interest in protecting it. I am indifferent to it.
I certainly do not have an interest in protecting the right of just anybody to express their political views. Some I do and some I don't. Nazis I have an interest in their not expressing their political views, and you do too.
We do not have an abstract and general interest in just anybody expressing any point of view. That is an idealist philosophical error, by which all thinking is valuable just because it is thinking. Humanity did not have an interest in Hitler sitting around abstractly coming up with _Mein Kampf_ , etc.
I apologize for the "dissertation" , but this is sort of a specialty area of mine.
^^^^^
> 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 factthat 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.
^^^^^ CB: Actually, I'm kind of appalled at your not thinking that it should be banned for that reason (!) I guess I'd say shocked. What exactly do you think in gained by the racist speech that it is so important not to prevent the killing ?
^^^^^
> Nazism is conspiracy to commit murder , period.
Again with the grand statements.
^^^^ CB: Why is it that you are against grand statements, assuming for the minute that this is a grand statement ?
You don't think that Nazism qualifies for grand "mal" statements ? Do you know what the Nazis did ???!!
^^^^^
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.
^^^^ CB: What interest do we have in protecting these armchair Nazis' right to make public speeches ? We are indifferent to what they do. We don't care if they can't make Nazi speeches ? The only other possibility is that their speeches might be effective, even if slightly such that somebody in a Nazi victim category would be victimized, i.e. it goes beyond being "armchair" . In both cases , we have no interest in it.
More later on "underground"