Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke1985
We have freedom of speech here, and hate speech is protected speech, just because someone says something it doesn't mean you have to act on it.
|
That is just where I disagree. People don't have an unlimited free will but can easily be manipulated, and a certain percentage will inevitably make hate speech become reality. If that wasn't that case, companies wouldn't spend billions on advertisement.
Of course not everybody will act on it. But when the audience is large enough, and depending on the "quality" of the manipulation, a certain percentage inevitably will. History has proven as much, just check the history of Nazi propaganda. And then, there were the Milgram experiments.
No, when claiming speech and action are two entirely different matters, you oversimplify the problem. Americans love this argument, because it is based on the illusion of free will, which goes along well with the typical American idealism. But history and sociology qualify this worldview.
Also, I don't believe it makes sense to protect hate speech as "free" speech: What sense is there in granting people the right to free speech, who abuse this free speech in order to abolish free speech? Why granting freedom to the enemies of freedom? It's like treating a dead man with medication, or like killing the patient in order to defeat the illness.
Maybe Germany's hate speech laws are not necessary anymore, but it is safe to say had they been in effect in the 1920s already, Hitler would have never come to power.
And still I believe its a double standard to go after "enemies of freedom" like radical islamists or Nazis, when they are outside your borders, but protect their hateful drivel and incitement to terrorist acts as "free speech" when they do it within your borders.