> ... there is no value for
> society in protecting the speech of those who only
> talk the talk or engage
> in strictly "abstract" Nazis discourse.
SH: Sure there is. Free speech is, of itself, a worthwhile goal, and an important protection for anyone with unconventional ideas.
CB: No, not of Nazi free speech. We can learn from history. We can draw conclusions about certain ideologies such as slavery old and new, monarchism, and fascism. We don't need to continue to have these ideas considered. Humanity can conclude definitely that they are not the way to organize society. Some questions can be answered in social science, historical science, law etc. One is that Nazism is a world historic crime.
The value of allowing all "unconventional" ideas, in the abstract, assuming for a moment that Nazism is unconventional ( it is not unconventional in the long run picture of history; it is a reaction back to ideologies like slavery , colonialism, imperialist racism and the like), is not an absolute value. It is overbalanced by the democratic values of anti-racism, anti-fascism. The freedom of speech is not a superior democratic value to freedom from racism and fascism. The political value of freedom of speech has to be consrued in the context of a number or liberatoin or liberties. Freedom from slavery and racism, and fascistic capitalism is part of the context of freedom of speech. Again, freedom of speech is not a higher democratic value than freedom from racism and white supremacism. In the U.S. , the First Amendment is not a more important Amendment than the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution ,which are basically anti-fascistic racist laws. The is a minority Supreme Court opinion that the 13th Amendment prohibits _private_ racist acts, under the "Badges and Incidents" clause.
> In order to nip in the bud the ones
> who might walk the walk , it is worth it to society
> to "sacrifice" the few who are only talking the stuff.
Gotta stop those bomb-throwing anarchists and the crazy socialists who want to have a violent revolution. Better lock up everyone who talks those ideas.
^^^^ CB: No fascists !
Communists and socialists are the complete opposite, politically of fascists. Liberals are closer politically to fascists than communists , anarchists and socialists.
Socialists will not avoid jail by not demanding fascistic racists be outlawed.
> It's a classical legal balancing test. The
> gravity of the harm of the ones who will walk the
> walk outweighs the
> "benefit" of allowing the others to play around
> with Nazi talk and ideas (the ones you know).
Classic nonsense. You speak only of "worth it to society". Are there no individual rights to be considered at all in your world view?
^^^ CB: No, classic sense. Working classic sense.
Individual right to freedom from fascistic racism should trump individual right to fascistic speech and organization. That's a better hierarchy of rights than the one you imply, i.e. freedom of speech is higher than freedom from fascistic racism. slave ideology, colonialism, racism.etc.-
> Plus , there is zero benefit to society from the ones
> who just play around with Nazi speech.
There is a major benefit to society of having free speech, of letting ideas be argued.
^^^^^ CB: It's absurd to call fascistic racist speech " free speech".