Should we ban neo-nazi and klan members freedom of speech?

Question

While I disagree with their hate for liberals, homosexuals, minorities, egalitarianism, and the ACLU, and their belief in the "liberal jewish media" myth... (Check their websites. This is true).

I believe everybody deserves the right to speak. The government should not be censoring anybody, and I would prefer if groups/individuals outside the government didn't do it either.

I'm sure conservatives who are not as fanatical as right-wing neo-nazis and klan members also agree.

Does that mean you agree with their message?

No.

So why does the university's decision to allow the fundie president of Iran to speak, mean they support his beliefs???

Answer 1

I disagree with everything they stand for, but I agree with their right to say it. I also have the freedom of speech to say that, and when I start taking their rights, mine are not long to follow. So to keep mine, I must defend theirs.

Answer 2

While in this country, he has every right to say whatever he wants....as do the KKK, neo-nazi's, and the ACLU. I support the right to free speech in every circumstance, as long as the speech isn't "inciting to riot" or directly promoting acts violence. The university of Columbia obviously doesn't support Iranian policy, and the president of the university challenged him in opening remarks on several issues....though none of his questions were answered directly...

I think it was a good thing that he was allowed entry into the US and was given a platform to speak. It shows how strongly we believe in democrasy and free speech. I doubt the president of Iran would afford Bush the same respect, or any American for that matter....and I think that is awesome !...because we lead by example, we've shown him to be a hypocrite.

Answer 3

Yes, freedom of speech is the reason - and why make an exception? If you ban that, why not ban other stuff you don't like? You either believe in freedom of speech or you don't, and if you believe in it, you have to be willing to tolerate opinions you dislike. "Inciting racial hatred" is a pretty vague and nebulous concept and I don't think it should be criminalised. It effectively creates a thought crime, and is just a thinly disguised way of preventing the expression of certain opinions. I mean, if I publish an article criticising the British Government, I'm not "inciting hatred" against the Government, I'm just expressing an opinion. Why should it be any different for issues such as race?

Answer 4

I agree with the right of anyone to say what he or she wants. I also agree that we have the right to condemn those who provide a platform on which they may speak. If I were to allow the Klan to come in my front yard, use my electricity for a microphone and spew racial hatred to passersby I think it may be looked down upon. That doesn't mean I don't think they have a right to stand across the street in the public park and say what they would like but I am not letting them do it on my lawn. Similarly, Columbia's choice to invite Lil' Hitler can be condemned by those who believe in free speech.

Answer 5

Agreed everyone while in this country has the right to speak their mind. Censorship is never correct. Is your speech truly free if you keep those who you disagree with from speaking? Honestly I can't understand how people equate hearing out the other side no matter how asinine that side is with support of their beliefs either.

Answer 6

No -- the concept of freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone -- even if what they are saying makes your blood boil and your hair stand on end.

Once we start picking and choosing which beliefs and which messages are allowed -- then we've crossed a line that has nothing to do with the specific content those groups are expressing -- and we have crossed the line into becoming that exact type of group.

Silencing anyone -- just because we don't agree with what they are saying -- makes us no better than the Nazis or the KKK.

Answer 7

They may not support his beliefs, but they did not allow the Founder of The Minutemen to go speak there because he was "too controversial". HUH? But the President of Iran is NOT controversial?
It shows hypocrisy on the part of Columbia.

Answer 8

while i agree with your assessment on freedom of speech, i find something troublesome about your comparison to columbia.

namely, one is about criminalizing speech and the other is about inviting people to speak.

one leaves someone else alone.

the other gives them support.

i do, however, think there is a way to connect your statements. the surest way to martyrdom is oppression. so to avoid giving the impression that you are turning them into martyrs, you expose them.

to reply to brian's post above:

the constitution recognizes citizenship as different in the following ways:
1) only a citizen may hold office in the house of representatives
2) only a citizen may hold office in the senate
3)only a citizen may be president
4)citizenship is mentioned in article iv, referring to the states' inability to deny rights to citizens from other states.


note: citizenship is not mentioned in:
1) article 1 section 9, limiting the powers of congress (including habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws)
2)amendment i, which says "right of the people" not "citizens"
3)amendment ii, which says "right of the people" not "citizens"
4)amendment iv, same
5) amendment v, same
6)amendment vi, "the accused" makes no mention of citizens


the constitution does not apply only to citizens. it applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Answer 9

I disagree with several things the Klan and aryan groups say *shocker*. However they have the right to say it.

Answer 10

The ACLU certainly doesn't think so, just ask the Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois.