Current Events > What would be the downside of making racism, Nazism, etc. illegal?

(+) Yeah! (+)

We have the First Amendment, but the First Amendment isn't an end unto itself, is it? Like, the goal isn't to worship the First Amendment, the goal is to create a more perfect union, and the First Amendment is just a tool we use to help us get there by protecting our freedoms of speech, religion, etc.

But if we could amend the First Amendment today to eliminate protections for racist speech, what would be the downside?

People will say thought police or whatever, but what *actually* would be the downside?

If we were to go Europe's route and say, racist speech is now a misdemeanor offense, denying the Holocaust is now a misdemeanor offense, violent Nazi protests like Charlottesville are now felonies, what would actually be the downside? How would our country be worse off? Wouldn't it kind of be better to draw that line in the sand?

Where would it stop.
---

Because making people not racist ends racism, making it illegal only makes them feel jusified because they're being silenced.
---

in Europe, didn't they arrest a guy because his dog was a nazi? lmfao

Burgess posted...

Where would it stop.

everything that isn't preaching death to minorities?
---

Burgess posted...

Where would it stop.

Displaying Nazi imagery or slogans in Germany is illegal, and it...pretty much stopped there. Almost like theyre actually willing to confront their past unlike us
---

Burgess posted...

Where would it stop.

Wherever we say it does?

Isn't our democracy actually *more* vulnerable to corrosion because racism is allowed to proliferate, not less? I get there's a slippery slope argument against prohibiting any speech, but doesn't allowing public displays of racism open our government up to the threat of demagogic takedown, whereas that would be harder if we were more like Europe?

Fecundity posted...

but the First Amendment isn't an end unto itself, is it

It is. Once you allow government the ability to determine what speech is or isn't acceptable, you no longer have freedom of speech. The first amendment is one thing that prevents us from ever having a government like China's, or Germany's or Russia's.

Fecundity posted...

If we were to go Europe's route and say, racist speech is now a misdemeanor offense, denying the Holocaust is now a misdemeanor offense, violent Nazi protests like Charlottesville are now felonies, what would actually be the downside?

Now imagine a hateful group similar to neo nazis gets into power in this country. Are you still ok with the government having the power to regulate speech?
---

TomNook20 posted...

Fecundity posted...

but the First Amendment isn't an end unto itself, is it

It is. Once you allow government the ability to determine what speech is or isn't acceptable, you no longer have freedom of speech. The first amendment is one thing that prevents us from ever having a government like China's, or Germany's or Russia's.

Fecundity posted...

If we were to go Europe's route and say, racist speech is now a misdemeanor offense, denying the Holocaust is now a misdemeanor offense, violent Nazi protests like Charlottesville are now felonies, what would actually be the downside?

Now imagine a hateful group similar to neo nazis gets into power in this country. Are you still ok with the government having the power to regulate speech?

Yes but

I get there's a slippery slope argument against prohibiting any speech, but doesn't allowing public displays of racism open our government up to the threat of demagogic takedown, whereas that would be harder if we were more like Europe?

And what if you were very specific about what speech would no longer be protected? What if you clearly defined the bounds of what's permissible and what'd not, so that even if that group of Neo Nazis got into power, they couldn't turn the law to their advantage?

Wouldn't prohibiting racist speech make it harder for those Neo Nazis to come into power in the First place?

Would I be in jail for making racist jokes?
---

A lot of people don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot believe, even if those beliefs are abhorrent.
---

Fecundity posted...

I get there's a slippery slope argument against prohibiting any speech, but doesn't allowing public displays of racism open our government up to the threat of demagogic takedown, whereas that would be harder if we were more like Europe?

Nope, there's a reason why our government hasn't ever resembled China's, or Germany's or Russia's.

Fecundity posted...

And what if you were very specific about what speech would no longer be protected? What if you clearly defined the bounds of what's permissible and what'd not, so that even if that group of Neo Nazis got into power, they couldn't turn the law to their advantage?

Wouldn't prohibiting racist speech make it harder for those Neo Nazis to come into power in the First place?

You can't. When you allow government the ability to determine what speech is permissible and what isn't, you are now at the mercy of your rulers. That's why we have the bill of rights, so that no matter who's in power, you are protected. And suppressing people's rights only stirs them up and only strengthens their movement. If someone is saying something stupid, the best weapon against them is to let them show everyone how stupid they are.
---

AlephZero posted...

A lot of people don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot believe, even if those beliefs are abhorrent.

Yeah I get that's our tradition in the US, but is it a good tradition? How does it improve our country or our world to allow racism to go uncontested?

Fecundity posted...

AlephZero posted...

A lot of people don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot believe, even if those beliefs are abhorrent.

Yeah I get that's our tradition in the US, but is it a good tradition? How does it improve our country or our world to allow racism to go uncontested?

What world do you live in where it's "uncontested?"
---

Racism is hard to make illegal, since it's a lot harder to draw the lines of what that constitutes. Is saying "I wouldn't date someone of *insert race*" racist? Some people say yes, some people say no, and I think either way that would be a weird thing to fine/imprison someone for. Also, you don't want the people in charge to start making things like "mentioning white privilege" legally considered racist.

Nazism on the other hand avoids most of these issues, because the iconography and stuff is very clear cut.
---

And suppressing people's rights only stirs them up and only strengthens their movement. If someone is saying something stupid, the best weapon against them is to let them show everyone how stupid they are.

What if you're wrong? What if allowing public displays of racism is actually what strengthens their movement, and suppressing those ideas is what weakens them? You're assuming the Neo Nazis did damage to their cause after Charlottesville because all the normal people acted horrified, but the Neo Nazis don't see it that way, they're jubilant because their views now have a wider audience than ever. I think they're going to end up gaining tens of thousands of new converts and sympathizers because of Charlottesville, whereas they wouldn't have if that protest had been illegal.

Why can't we create a law with no loopholes that can't be exploited by an anti democratic ruler? And isn't the risk of an anti democratic higher if we allow racism to continue to fester?

Fecundity posted...

AlephZero posted...

A lot of people don't think the government should be in the business of telling people what they can and cannot believe, even if those beliefs are abhorrent.

Yeah I get that's our tradition in the US, but is it a good tradition? How does it improve our country or our world to allow racism to go uncontested?

Because history has repeatedly shown governments who encroached on that idea inevitably leads to various forms and degrees of authoritarianism when it suits the state. I guarantee you they will use these laws against people nefariously to some extent, the government does this against well known activists and dissenters already, why give them more ammunition?
---

Fecundity posted...

Wherever we say it does?

We? So the majority? What if the majority then wants to make racism legal?
---

Honestly making displaying Nazi paraphernalia in public illegal is perfectly fine by me.

I don't know if you could really make being racist illegal.
---

in europe a man went to prison just for eating bacon in from of muslims. and then someone in prison killed him. I don't that to ever happen in america

The downside would be one of the reasons why Trump got elected in the first place. The victim complex many white people got.

Fecundity posted...

And suppressing people's rights only stirs them up and only strengthens their movement. If someone is saying something stupid, the best weapon against them is to let them show everyone how stupid they are.

What if you're wrong? What if allowing public displays of racism is actually what strengthens their movement, and suppressing those ideas is what weakens them? You're assuming the Neo Nazis did damage to their cause after Charlottesville because all the normal people acted horrified, but the Neo Nazis don't see it that way, they're jubilant because their views now have a wider audience than ever. I think they're going to end up gaining tens of thousands of new converts and sympathizers because of Charlottesville, whereas they wouldn't have if that protest had been illegal.

Why can't we create a law with no loopholes that can't be exploited by an anti democratic ruler? And isn't the risk of an anti democratic higher if we allow racism to continue to fester?

Because prohibition worked so well before.
---

Because it's a slippery slope and now the gov't can just ban any kind of speech they don't like. Terrible idea.
---

The ability for those in power to abuse the definitions of racism, Nazism, etc. to silence innocent views.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

The ability for those in power to abuse the definitions of racism, Nazism, etc. to silence innocent views.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine for a second it were possible to illegalize racism and Nazism and not have it be a slippery slope to anything. What would be the downside?

If you make it illegal, you just drive it underground. You can't get rid of an expressive thought by making it illegal; you have to change the culture that allows this type of thought to grow and take root.
---

Making it illegal, even without the slippery slope, wont stop it.
---

Fecundity posted...

What if you're wrong

I'm not. You need to brush up on your history.

Why can't we create a law with no loopholes that can't be exploited by an anti democratic ruler?

We did, it's called the first amendment.
---

But just for a moment, imagine a hypothetical scenario that for some reason has no downside. What would be the downside?

NeoShadowhen posted...

But just for a moment, imagine a hypothetical scenario that for some reason has no downside. What would be the downside?

You're assuming your estimation of the downside is accurate, when I don't think it is. Europe hasn't been taken over by fascism since a lot of its countries prohibited Nazism, and the reason they prohibited Nazism was to make it harder for fascism to take over again.

The Republican party controls the federal government right now, led by Donald Trump. Would you be alright with them determining what is and isn't legally acceptable speech?
---

When you begin to start campaigning for free speech restrictions just keep in mind which side controls the government. If the walls did come down, who's speech do you believe will actually be silenced?
---

The line in the sand was already drawn by the writers of the constitution.

If you want another line in the sand drawn, what's stopping someone else fifty years from now saying they want another line in the sand drawn?
---

All it'll do is feed those dickholes' persecution complex, plus thought crimes should never be a thing.

There's also the threat of the definition of those two things becoming too broad. Or worse, downright ass backwards.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

The ability for those in power to abuse the definitions of racism, Nazism, etc. to silence innocent views.

Im pretty sure "dont display Third Reich iconography or shout their slogans" is pretty clearcut and not really abusable
---

Slippery slope. First Nazis are banned. Then Communists go. Next are the Libertarians. Lastly the Democrats. Congratulations you now have a single party state like China.
---

Considering how much the definition of racist and nazi have changed in the past year you eventually get arrested based on profiling.
---

Attempting to ban racism is thoughtcrime, which is both utter tyranny and utterly impossible.

Irony posted...

Considering how much the definition of racist and nazi have changed in the past year you eventually get arrested based on profiling.

RebelElite791 posted...

Im pretty sure "dont display Third Reich iconography or shout their slogans" is pretty clearcut and not really abusable

And nah, when people are marching with Nazi clothes, yelling Nazi slogans, doing Nazi salutes, and calling for genocide, I wouldn't call that "changing the definition"
---

RebelElite791 posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

The ability for those in power to abuse the definitions of racism, Nazism, etc. to silence innocent views.

Im pretty sure "dont display Third Reich iconography or shout their slogans" is pretty clearcut and not really abusable

You don't have to do any of that, or anything close to it, to be labelled a nazi today.

If we can keep it at that and not indulge ourselves on micro-aggressions then I'd be for it
---