Stephen Den Beste replied to my previous blog about the ACLU (quoted with permission):
I'm afraid I must deeply disagree with you. Our dedication to freedom absolutely must include defending the speech of those we hate. The entire point is that the protection of speech must indeed be moral neutral. If protection of speech becomes broadly related to the content of the speech and the extent to which it is approved by the general populace, then it ceases to be protected.
While it's true that we should not censor speech because it has content we do not like, there are certain types of speech that are unacceptable, such as yelling "Fire!!" in a movie theatre. Speech intended to intimidate or harass or frighten people, is also objectionable. I would say it is immoral. Someone more into rights, could simply say I don't agree with a right to intimidating speech.
You cannot come up to me and tell me I should be killed, and expect your "right" to harass me to be protected. Neither should you be able to go find a bunch of Jews and start talking about how Jews should die, or Hitler wasn't so bad (less direct, but same thing).
The entire point of it is that sometimes we need revolutionary ideas introduced into the political process, and that it is often the case that such ideas are found to be deeply offensive by many.
As a standalone, I agree with this bit. But it misses the point: my criterion is not to ban unpopular ideas, but intimidating and harassing ones.
If the idea is worthless or vile, it will fail in the "marketplace of ideas". But if it's unpopular but also important, then it must be given that chance.
Again, it's not that the ideas are bad, it's that speaking them hurts people.
Originally, the idea of giving women the vote was seen as radical, absurd, immoral. We now view it differently.
Going around saying "I think women should be allowed to vote" didn't harm men.
Nazism and bigotry are also immoral, and I want to make clear that I don't equate them with Women's Suffrage. But if we have confidence in our population, we defend ourselves against evil and harmful ideas by arguing against them, not by using the power of law to suppress them. The problem with use of censorship in that way is that it makes us stand on the edge of a precipice, where we can fall off. Once we start suppressing the Nazis, where do we stop?
My fear is definitely not that people would agree with the Nazis, and I agree censoring ideas for fear people might like them is wrong.
I do not agree with the Nazis. I despise what they stand for, and everything they advocate. And it is precisely because of this that I feel obligated to defend their right to express their point of view.
There are ways the Nazis could express their point of view that I would not object to. But finding some Jews to harass isn't one of them.
Would you feel safe walking through a crowd of Nazis with your children to spend some time at the park? Would there be police at the march? Why do you think they are there?
The point is precisely that law is not morality, and I do not think we should use the power of law to enforce morality.
I don't make distinctions about what it is and is not legitimate to make laws about. There is no system under which the vast majority of people think something is morally imperative, and then don't act on this. Regardless, laws certainly should be able to stop harassment as takes place at actual Nazi speeches (as opposed to the imaginary Utopian ones where they are all nice and friendly).
Morality enters into the situation in a different way. In the marketplace of ideas, it is public morality which will guarantee that the ideas of the Nazis will never become widespread. Since I have faith in the fundamental decency of the vast majority of my fellow citizens, I do not fear letting them be exposed to the ideas of groups like the Nazis, because I know they'll react to them the same way you and I do.
I too have such faith! That's really not my objection ^_^
Therefore, our nation and our system are not in peril because the Nazis are free to spout their hateful garbage. But if we start using the power of law to suppress those with whom we disagree, that actually creates the potential for a different peril in future which could end up endangering us all.
Letting the Nazis speak may be evil, but it is the lesser evil.
I understand concerns of a police state, but on the other end of the spectrum, are concerns of tolerance of evil, and moral relativism, and a society that doesn't stand up for right, which is also terrible. Thus "do everything possible to avoid a police state" would be the wrong strategy -- we must make judgments about what should be stopped.
So, to sum up, because Nazi rallies involve more than just communicating ideas (and this one in particular was intentionally targeted at a Jewish community), the ACLU need not and should not help them take place.
i want to be clear.
you're not against Nazi antisemitic violence-encouraging writings being published in magazines.
you are against a (IRL) rally where these ideas are shouted, at a location where the victims live.
btw, what sort of legal way does the jewish community (or anyone) have of stopping such a rally from happening?
> you're not against Nazi antisemitic violence-encouraging writings being published in magazines.
uhh what do you mean by "not against"?
> btw, what sort of legal way does the jewish community (or anyone) have of stopping such a rally from happening?
it's the police's job to stop violence. ask them to do their job.
> uhh what do you mean by "not against"?
oops. i meant:
you're against the government regulating what ideas can be published, even if it's Nazi antisemitic violence-encouraging stuff.
depends on the details. inciting violence is illegal. harassing, intimidating and threatening Jews is illegal.