
The ACLU Asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America? - mbgaxyz
http://documents.latimes.com/aclu-asks-1934-shall-we-defend-free-speech-nazis-america/
======
nocoder
This -

"Further, we point out the inevitable effect of making martyrs by persecution.
Persecute the Nazis, drive them underground, imitate their methods in Germany
- and attract to them hundreds of sympathizers with the persecuted who would
otherwise be indifferent."

Most of the people & corporations screaming for suppression on all kinds of
speeches across spectrum of opinions do not get this. The best way increase
toxicity of any discourse is to try and suppress it, this is is evident from
recent examples of Google, Cloudfare, FB, Charlotesville, University of
Berkeley and many more. While I have no hopes from corporations, I hope that
people realize that dialogue & free speech are perhaps the most non-violent &
non-toxic ways of resolving any issues. Suppressing opinions be of any side
just widens the chasm between groups and benefits narrow political agendas.

~~~
matt4077
This mechanism of any form of blowback against extremists only making them
stronger keeps being repeated, but there is absolutely no data supporting it.

There is, however, plenty of data supporting the opposite: almost all other
democracies have strikter limits on hate speech, and none of them have
devolved into dictatorships.

Indeed, one could argue that the US ran a pretty successful campaign to
suppress Nazi hate speech almost immediately after it was invented.

~~~
nocoder
>There is, however, plenty of data supporting the opposite: almost all other
democracies have strikter limits on hate speech, and none of them have
devolved into dictatorships.

does that mean all "hate speech" is eliminated? Please share the data.

The other problem is who decides which free speech to suppress? Who has that
moral right?

~~~
matt4077
Of course it's difficult to name the exact test that draws a bright line
between legal and illegal speech, because speech exists along a continuous
spectrum.

But the law has literally hundreds of years of experience with such problems.
The line between marketing and fraud, or porn and art is just as hard to
define.

So, for example, bringing Swastikas to a protest in Germany would get you
thrown in jail, and so would guns, or slogans such as "gas the jews".

It's been like that for 70 years, and you're still free to say really nasty
things about Merkel without any fear of prosecution.

------
mido22
I am kinda confused, facebook was criticized for not weeding out "fake news"
(same for twitter/ Instagram not controlling trolling/hate speech), and
Cloudflare is criticized for not being content neutral... damned if you do,
damned if you don't

~~~
ForHackernews
I think there's a meaningful difference between a media company
(Facebook/Twitter/etc.) and an infrastructure provider.

I expect the electric company to provide electricity to everyone on a non-
discriminatory basis. I don't expect publishers to print everything that gets
submitted to them.

~~~
PeanutCurry
Could you expand on this a little? I'm confused because the ACLU is not a
government organization, they're not part of the infrastructure.

~~~
pls2halp
His parent was referring to Cloudflare suspending their services for the Daily
Stormer, which was presumably the impetuous for this whole post.

------
palad1n
It's an interesting position: the paper says they defend the right of their
assembly, but even then, at the end says if they cross the line, they should
be held legally accountable. What's interesting is that their stated goals are
in fact against the law. The paper sort of does a dance about this issue.
You're allowed to hate. You're not allowed to act upon that hate. Where does
that leave us? In my thinking, they're the ones who have to change. How to
bring that about? We watch the watchmen. By "we", I mean the world. It's not
the same situation we are in now as back when this paper was written. Should
we now then, knowing what are the fruits of their assembly when they did so
before, tolerate even the scheming of their purposes? I like one thing that
happened this last time: the pictures of them all over the social networks
asking if their employers would tolerate them. I say, let them assemble. Take
note of them, now that they are emboldened to show their faces. And if they
take one step to fulfill their agenda, then unleash hell on them.

------
b6
It's great to read such eloquent defense of such an important idea. I would
ask that anybody with terrible ideas be allowed to speak at length and
convince all the peaceful tolerant listeners of the terribleness of the ideas.
Sadly, the importance of freedom of expression seems dead in the minds of many
Americans.

~~~
nimish
You and the ACLU have been tripped up by the paradox of tolerance: there is a
time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society, but that is not
the same as what happened in Charlottesville or Germany in the '30s

~~~
lagadu
> there is a time and place to analyze ideas destructive to open society

I hope you realize this is the type of speech we should expect from a
totalitarian regime.

Who determines whether something is destructive to society? Always and
everywhere should be the time and place to analyse any ideas regardless of
whether anyone thinks they're destructive or not.

~~~
syshum
>>Who determines whether something is destructive to society?

This is a key question people want to avoid

Every group has their own idea as to what is destructive to society, Ask Anti-
fa they will tell it is the White Supremacists, Ask the White Supremacists and
they will tell you it is Anti-fa

Ask me and I will tell you it is both...

Ask Christians and they will give you a whole list of speech that is
destructive,

Ask Atheists and they will give you a whole list of speech that is
destructive,

Ask <insert group>, and they will give you a whole list of speech that is
destructive,

So who is right? None of them.... not even me.

What is actually destructive to society is Censorship... Both by government
and by society at large

------
waynenilsen
> Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only as an
> abstract principle, demands defense of the rights of _all_ who are attacked
> in order to obtain the rights of _any_?

------
ryanbrunner
I think it's always useful to define exactly what sort of speech you want to
suppress when you discuss additional restrictions on free speech. I think the
idea of free speech as an absolute right is already a pleasant fiction -
there's many exceptions, and adding additional ones doesn't seem like a huge
problem.

But I get the impression that people mean "the initial rally in
Charlottesville shouldn't be allowed" when they're discussing this, and that
doesn't seem realistic with any sort of free speech restrictions. I'm sorry to
parrot a Donald Trump argument, but not everyone in that crowd was waving a
Nazi flag, and very few were directly calling for violence (I won't go as far
as to say they're good people or historical statue enthusiasts). Do you
outright ban any sort of racist sentiment? That seems overly broad and
potentially capable of being used negatively against minorities.

I think there's two free speech restrictions that I could get behind:

1\. Widening the definition of "incitement" to relax the imminent and direct
requirements. I don't see why "kill all blacks" should be protected while
"kill this black with this gun" shouldn't be.

2\. Banning specific iconography that has a long history of being used for
hate (the swastika, white hoods, etc.)

2 may have had some marginal utility in Charlottesville (you'd have no Nazi
flags, but still plenty of Nazis). I don't think 1 would have made a lot of
difference. As far as I know (I'm happy to be corrected on this), most or all
of the crowd was not calling for violence, direct or indirect. How do you
restrict the speech of people calling for border walls, muslim bans,
restrictions on legal and illegal immigration, and other racist but non-
violent positions?

~~~
nocoder
Small nitpick on 2 -

If you visited India you will find "Swastikas" on the doors of many of the
Hindu & Jain households. It is a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck, the
association with hatred is very recent and perhaps limited to western world.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)

~~~
matt4077
It's this sort of completely irrelevant, shallow, bad-faith argument that
makes me afraid of what the future holds.

Within the context of this debate, the Swastika is a symbol of genocide, and
fascism, and nothing else. To suggest that you can't tell, and that these
people chanting "Jews will not replace us" may have just been buddhists is
ridiculous, and sad.

------
spodek
There's a big difference between Nazis in 1934 and now. How comparable are
they?

How many in 1934 have foreseen what was to come?

~~~
Raz2
It is said that it was a common feeling that war is imminent.

------
nkzednan
There's a good episode of Opening Arguments (podcast) that talks about the
ACLU/Charlottesville/etc. [http://openargs.com/oa96-understanding-
charlottesville/](http://openargs.com/oa96-understanding-charlottesville/)

------
Raz2
So, a lot of Americans think that if they ban incitement to hatred based on
sex, race, and religion than they have to ban communists, republicans, and
democrats in a few years. I really don't get how is it related. Especially if
it didn't happen in other countries.

------
nl
Note that the ACLU has (just today) announced a slight modification to this
policy.

They will continue to defend Fascist groups right to hold marches, but not if
they plan to carry guns.

 _The American Civil Liberties Union will no longer defend hate groups seeking
to march with firearms, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, a policy
change that comes on the heels of protests by white nationalists and counter-
protesters at the weekend in Virginia._

Edit: I don't usually complain about this, but it's weird to see the voting on
this. It's pretty clear some people don't like it, and decided to shoot the
messenger I guess.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-aclu-
id...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-aclu-
idUSKCN1AY06L)

~~~
officemonkey
I'm thinking this is an example of the original statement in the pamphlet that
says "overt acts of interference of others' rights" will not be supported.

Open carry of firearms during protests is _intended_ to intimidate others'
free speech rights. It's an overt act of interference of others' rights.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
With the possible exception of people protesting for their right to openly
carry firearms.

Showing up armed to a protest not about bearing arms is just asking for things
to go south fast.

