The important difference between democracy and ochlocracy - while in both cases majority rules - in democracy the rights of minority (of even as small as one individual) are protected thus limiting the power of the majority while in ochlocracy the majority's power is unlimited. Thus preservation rights of minority, even and especially when you don't like those rights being utilized by that minority, like say the free speech right by nazis or requirement that law enforcement gets search warrant before intruding into the private space, physical or virtual, of even obvious criminals, is among the most important actions preserving democracy.
> in democracy the rights of minority (of even as small as one individual) are protected
It's called «liberal democracy». The major differences between democracy and liberal democracy are 1) protection of minority rights up to individual freedom (one against all), 2) rule of law (law cannot be used to harm minorities), 3) free and fair elections (all people can vote and be elected).
However, do note that freedom of speech for everyone, up to and including nazis, is very much a US thing and not characteristic of all liberal democracies. And even the united states doesn't allow people complete freedom.
> Laws in liberal democracies may limit certain freedoms. The common justification for these limits is that they are necessary to guarantee the existence of democracy, or the existence of the freedoms themselves. For example, democratic governments may impose restrictions on free speech, with examples including Holocaust denial and hate speech. Some discriminatory behavior may be prohibited. For example, public accommodations in the United States may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."
Although this is not a good example since there are lots of democracies where nazis, specifically, don't have free speech rights. Even possibly most democracies. Although I didn't find a list about freedom of nazi speech specifically, here's the countries where nazi symbols are banned or restricted:
And this article has a clear map of countries where holocaust denial specifically is illegal (definitely a talking point for modern day wannabe nazis):
While basic core is about the same, different democracies have different guaranteed rights. And my comment, after living here for 25 years, was naturally US-centric. US guarantees free speech right including the right to deny Holocaust, so even that right to deny Holocaust has to be protected. US also has for example gun rights which also thus have to be protected. Other democracies for example don't have gun rights, and as you correctly noted have slightly different understanding and scope of the free speech.
It's kind of ironic that you're treating the US as the exceptional, canonical example of democracy on an article making the claim that perhaps it shouldn't even be called a democracy at all anymore.
At the very least, I think you have to accept that all these other places which don't guarantee freedom of speech to hateful people have just as much, if not more, claim to being democracies, and that therefore, freedom of speech for all possible minorities is not actually a fundamental part of being a democracy.
>an article making the claim that perhaps it shouldn't even be called a democracy at all anymore.
some of those people here who haven't seen real non-democracies make all sort of such unfounded claims. To anybody making such claim i suggest to visit my old country - Russia - and try to use any rights supposedly guaranteed by Russian "democracy".
>you have to accept that all these other places which don't guarantee freedom of speech to hateful people have just as much, if not more, claim to being democracies
as long as they deliver on their guarantees of rights they are good democracies too. I just personally like US style more. Including how for example Congress is elected - individual elections instead of parties lists (like say in Germany).
> freedom of speech for all possible minorities is not actually a fundamental part of being a democracy.
it is fundamental part of the US democracy because it is guaranteed as such a right here.
> some of those people here who haven't seen real non-democracies make all sort of such unfounded claims. To anybody making such claim i suggest to visit my old country - Russia - and try to use any rights supposedly guaranteed by Russian "democracy".
Well, let's wait and see how it looks at the end of the next four years.
It seems like your experience of countries that calk themselves democracies is the US and Russia? Two extremes for sure, but I don't think either of them provide a good model for what a liberal democracy can be.
I'm convinced political parties devolve into corruption by wealth "regulatory capture"-like malignancy in under-regulated, greed-driven, individualistic, low-trust societies.
Sortition is one way out. Throw out the political parties, divide-and-conquer social divisions, distracting team-sport animosities that distract for 1-2 years. Instead, choose functionaries from professional societies at random to fulfill a 2 year term of public administration in roles that would otherwise be hotly-contested. No more political control and chaos driven by the 1% or the 99%. While that would mean an end of the failed democratic experiment generally, it would eschew fascism, kleptocracy, ochlocracy, and oligopoly. Just plain, random persons fulfilling their civic duty to keep basic civic functions going. Feedback from the populace would arrive in the form of comments, suggestions, and petitions that would be taken under advisement. Infinite freedom to choose criminal or actors to abuse power leads to no freedom at all. The so-called "this is the best form of government apart from all others that have been tried" is itself fallacious and a lie without evidence.
I recommend reading The Politics Industry by Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter for a thorough (but accessible) systems-first analysis of the American political system + recommendations for reforms.
