Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Can we discuss ANTIFA, Nazis and free speech?

145 replies

AssignedPerfectAtBirth · 26/08/2017 14:26

I am somewhat confused about Antifa and their recent activism, particularly in Charlottesville. On the one hand I do believe that there is a line to be drawn somewhere in the case of Nazi activism. But I am struggling with the use of violence. I know the Anti-Facist League has existed in the UK for many years, but they were very much on the periphery. Am I right in thinking that such movements are relatively new in the US?

Should Nazis and white supremacists ever have a right to organise, march, make speeches or should they be battered off the streets? Where does the right of free speech end?

I have some issues with Antifa. The debate is so polarised and many rightwingers are being tossed into the same pot as white supremacists and Nazis by some of the MSM, which can't be a good thing.

Thoughts anyone?

OP posts:
MadgeMidgerson · 30/08/2017 20:23

Speech by people who are calling themselves nazis, using their imagery etc is inherently an incitement to violence because nazis were violent. It is a political philosophy grounded in genocide and murder.

You can't be a nice nazi, or a harmless one. As a member of a constituency at the sharp end of their violence, I absolutely would respond to limit their speech should they attempt to exercise it near me, and Voltaire be damned

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:23

The original statement was along the lines of even though I hate every statement you are making, I defend your right to say it.

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:27

So MadgeMigerson, when a socialist politician cannot contemplate a challenging friendship or discussion with a person of another political persuasion, they should be allowed to get away with it?

MadgeMidgerson · 30/08/2017 20:33

If you are calling for my death, or that of people like me, no, we can't be chums.

no, I'm not going to waste energy trying to convince you to let me live.

Yes, I will defend myself if you threaten my life or bodily integrity

hth

CheerfulYank · 30/08/2017 20:34

Yes, anyone calling for the death of anyone has violated the incitement of violence aspect.

MadgeMidgerson · 30/08/2017 20:38

That would then include kkk and nazis

their 'free speech' is analogous to someone walking in to a public place, heavily armed, and shouting that they will murder everyone there

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:40

Not calling for deaths, Madge, not yours or any one else's. There has been a series of articles in the UK press recently with a fairly prominent socialist saying that she could not be on friendly terms with anyone from the Conservative party. I was referencing that. Not meaning to confuse things. Sorry to have offered the wrong end of the stick.

lessworriedaboutthecat · 30/08/2017 20:42

I think in terms of free speech in America your allowed to say things like for example "Black people are inferior " and while that is abhorrent its not illegal while saying " I call upon my followers to go out and kill black people " is a crime and inciting violence.

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:45

I think the understanding in the Uk would be, I wouldn't go out to dinner with you, no matter how much I warmed to you personally.

Because, believe it or not, in the UK House of Commons, it is normal to dine or lunch or breakfast with members of opposition parties, if you like them as people, and to have heated friendly arguments about policy over food and wine.

PacificDogwod · 30/08/2017 20:46

With all freedoms coms responsibilities.

I think with freedom of speech must come responsibility for what one says. And accountability. And this ought to be enforced a bit better than currently...

MadgeMidgerson · 30/08/2017 20:49

That anyone is trying to equate

'Group x is inferior and must be eliminated'

with

'I don't think I would ever be on friendly terms with a tory'

is hard to fathom- oh, no wait, it isn't. Your slip is showing, and it's obvious.

SophoclesTheFox · 30/08/2017 20:51

Really interesting articles there. Placemarking while I digest them.

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:58

I don't think so. That you are here and engaging with me, not taking refuge behind the part wall, is encouraging. I have acknowledged that I am a small c conservative. I have no difference from the left on social issues, but I don't think socialism has ever grasped the notion that social progress is based on economics. And across a century during which socialism has been tried and tested across different countries and cultures, I cannot think of one where the governed demanded to keep it. It's not a deficiency of kindness; it's a failure of the system to lift people into a better way of life. Suggest otherwise, please and I will listen!

OCSockOrphanage · 30/08/2017 20:59

Party wall, obviously!

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 09:15

"If you are calling for my death, or that of people like me, no, we can't be chums.

no, I'm not going to waste energy trying to convince you to let me live.

Yes, I will defend myself if you threaten my life or bodily integrity"

Surely, Midge, we need to differentiate between actual physical violence, and the use of 'hateful' words, though; they are completely different conversations.

I recently heard precisely that distinction made between the two groups: the words of the alt-right protesters were MORE reprehensible than what the Antifa were saying, but the violent actions of some of the Antifa were more reprehensible than the actions of those against whom they were protesting.

Free speech - whatever its content - is a totally different thing to a 'licence for physical violence'; no matter how abhorrent the speech is, it gives no one the right to become violent when protesting against it. Some within the Antifa seem to think that they do have the right to be violent, cos, y'know, Nazis.

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 09:16

Sorry, Madge!

Anatidae · 31/08/2017 09:44

But the societal sanction IS an issue -

"Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." (John Stuart mill, 'on liberty.'"

how do we reconcile this? Because societal opprobrium is a powerful force and can be both positive (general scorn directed at westboro baptist) and negative (societal acorn directed at say, single mothers.)

MadgeMidgerson · 31/08/2017 10:40

Your argument is specious, and you are being disingenuous.

Your slip is showing, and it is obvious.

A threat to life or bodily integrity does not and never has constituted 'free speech'.

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 12:01



The erosion of free speech online, due to the huge monopolies of the likes of Google, also really concerns me. Google fired one of its employees recently, because he held views that did not 100% match up with Google's.

Dr. Jordan Peterson's Gmail account was recently suspended, for no given reason, with no explanation. It was later re-instated, again with no explanation.

Facebook and Google can adjust their algorithms so that certain news stories, and certain reactions to those stories, come out at the top of people's searches and news feeds - and certain others, do not. These companies can, essentially, censor, or at least manipulate, free dissemination of people's views.

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 12:02

That was supposed to be headed by another quote from Voltaire:

If you want to know what controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticise.

MadgeMidgerson · 31/08/2017 12:04

google and Facebook are not obliged to disseminate anyone's views

they are censoring people in much the same way that the Telegraph is censoring me by not providing me with my own column

Freedom of speech does not mean entitlement to a platform, or an audience

MadgeMidgerson · 31/08/2017 12:06

Are we pretending that violent hate speech is equivalent to thoughtful critique?

disingenuous and disingenuouser.

You are going to have to try harder than that, you are like a windowpane.

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 12:11

"A threat to life or bodily integrity does not and never has constituted 'free speech'."

A verbal threat is not the same as a physical threat. Or are you saying that a 6 foot tall man is justified in hitting a little old lady over the head with a baseball bat, because she has just told him "I want you dead"? Does her verbal threat justify his physical actions? Of course not. Yet Antifa would seem to disagree.

CSLewis · 31/08/2017 12:12

But who gets to decide, Madge, whether something is thoughtful critique or violent hate speech? Violent Antifa protesters?

OCSockOrphanage · 31/08/2017 12:24

We all make distinctions between thoughtful critique and hate speech. What I object to is the increasing tendency in places that should be open to a full spectrum of intellectual idea-sharing, like university campuses, creating "safe spaces" where individuals with fixed views can hide from those expressing contrary opinions just by labelling them "hateful".