U.S. opposes Nazi speech, but will vote no at U.N. to banning it

I thought hate speech wasn't covered under free speech protection.

Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder and laws controlling speech are the tools of the fascist. There is such a thing as a slippery slope - history has numerous examples. Speech is speech. Violence is violence. They are no where close to being analogous to one another.

So, in America you can hail Hitler, but may not say something that is not politically correct? Wow, where is the old good logic?

Will Israel, the close U.S. ally whose history is intertwined with the Holocaust, vote with the U.S.? In the past, Israel has voted for the resolution. But Washington has been pushing the Jewish state to vote "no" this year, or at a minimum to abstain.

It would be a true stain against the nation and people of Israel, and all Jewish people, if the Israeli government votes against restricting the glorification of the Nazis because Trump told them to. I am not sure if there could be a worse vote for Israel to make..

Why do the the US care what anybody thinks about them any more?

It’s not like they’re protecting some kind of enviable reputation.

So, in America you can hail Hitler, but may not say something that is not politically correct?

You are allowed to say non-politically correct things in the US. I'm not sure where you got this weird idea that you just posted.

You are allowed to say non-politically correct things in the US. I'm not sure where you got this weird idea that you just posted

Sure, sure. I wonder what would happen to any more or less prominent person in the US if he or she says something non-politically correct about LBGT or Jews or feminists.

I wonder what would happen to any more or less prominent person in the US if he or she says something non-politically correct about LBGT or Jews or feminists.

They would probably be castigated by the people.

But they are still allowed to say it, contrary to your comment:

So, in America you can hail Hitler, but may not say something that is not politically correct? Wow, where is the old good logic?

You seem to be conflating what someone is legally allowed to say (Hitler speech in this story) with what people can get away with saying socially (something non-politically correct about LBGT, jews, or feminists).

Freedom of speech does not mean you are can say whatever you want and face no consequences. Freedom of speech means you can say (almost) whatever you want without being prosecuted.

They would probably be castigated by the people

Castigated? Nice euphemism. In more plain English: they would be sacked, their careers ruined, they would be sued and mercilessly haunted by abovementioned groups. Otherwise yes, they are free to exercise their freedom of speech.

Several years ago here in Tokyo I got acquainted with an American who worked for one Japanese research center. Before coming to Japan he had worked at a good university in the US, but was sacked after saying something non-politically correct about feminists. To say that the man was traumatized by the experience will be a major understatement. I think your little speech about wonders of freedoms in the US will be lost to him.

I thought hate speech wasn't covered under free speech protection.

Curious position for the US to take.

The First Amendment is all but absolute, and is the most ironclad speech protection against the government in the world.

The closest thing to a hate speech exception requires a directed, immediately actionable call to violence.

Castigated? Nice euphemism.

I don't think you know what a euphemism is. It's a word used to make something sound better than what it actually is. Castigated does not have a positive nuance, and therefore is useless as a euphemism.

In more plain English: they would be sacked, their careers ruined, they would be sued and mercilessly haunted by abovementioned groups. Otherwise yes, they are free to exercise their freedom of speech.

There is no 'otherwise' about it. They have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want (with of course a few exceptions like talking about bombs in airports). Whether or not they will be berated by the public for something they say is irrelevant to freedom of speech. The only thing relevant to freedom of speech is whether or not they are arrested/prosecuted for the things they have said.

So no, it's not 'otherwise' they are 'free to exercise their freedom of speech', as they are always free to exercise their freedom of speech even if/when people are castigating them for what they say.

Before coming to Japan he had worked at a good university in the US, but was sacked after saying something non-politically correct about feminists. To say that the man was traumatized by the experience will be a major understatement.

As I said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence from anything you say. People most definitely face consequences if they say something stupid, even while being fully covered by freedom of speech. They are separate issues, which you are conflating.

I think your little speech about wonders of freedoms in the US will be lost to him.

Then he would be ignoring reality and conflating the freedom to say anything one wants without consequence (a freedom that exists nowhere) with freedom of speech (a freedom that exists in first-world countries). They are not the same thing, no matter how much you try to falsely equate them.

@Asakaze

The issue in the example of your acquaintance can be explained by the difference in negative and positive rights.

The U.S. constitution has incredibly strong negative rights - restrictions on government action. However, explicit positive rights - compulsions of government action - are completely absent.

Additional implicit negative and positive rights have been fleshed-out over the years, usually when strict constructionists weren't dominant on the Supreme Court. An example is the right of one man, one vote; even though the right to vote itself doesn't actually exist.

Because of this, consequences between one private party and another, such as firing someone for "politically incorrect" speech, has no cause of action for the government to intervene.

Introduced by Russia, the resolution calls on all U.N. nations to ban pro-Nazi speech and organizations, and to implement other restrictions on speech and assembly.

Anything pro-Nazi is abhorrent, but I think it's a touch rich the resolution is coming from Russia with its history of Stalinism, which, depending on perspective, can easily be seen as having been as bad as Nazism. Will Russia consider banning pro-Stalin groups, which apparently are not uncommon in Russia?

The closest thing to a hate speech exception requires a directed, immediately actionable call to violence.

I can safely assume by this comment that you know very little about what is going on at American universities today. It is shockingly common for students to seek “safe spaces” to hide themselves from politically incorrect speech. That is of course after spending hours yelling obscenities at the offending speaker for the crime of having a different view of the world.

Castigated? Nice euphemism. In more plain English: they would be sacked, their careers ruined, they would be sued and mercilessly haunted by abovementioned groups. Otherwise yes, they are free to exercise their freedom of speech.

One of the beauties of freedom of speech is you can find out what people think. The idea that people shouldn't judge it is ridiculous. That's part of the point.

It is shockingly common for students to seek "safe spaces" to hide themselves from politically incorrect speech

This isn't a problem limited to the US and to barring true scumbags. UK universities have banned feminists and gay rights activists for not passing their rigorous purity tests.

I regard myself as being on the left and this lot are a dangerous embarrassment who open the door for the vicious. When they stop acting like children, they might get this.

Freedom of speech is a great thing and people can and do say offensive things, repeatedly. Whilst often complaining that they are not allowed speak their mind.

This inconsistency is played out millions of times every day, online and in the outside world.

Those who abuse free speech by going down the hate speech road are often "traumatised" when the nature of the learning curve becomes apparent and feign their shock and disappointment, decrying those who point out their offensiveness.

Which they are also free to do. But if they can't handle consequence and negative response; they really should be thinking about their message that they want to get across.

Burning Bush:

I thought hate speech wasn't covered under free speech protection.

The problem with this is the definition of "hate speech". One persons "criticism" somebody elses "hate". Either you have free speech, or you do not. Free speech with restrictions is not free speech.

Case in point: Some religious books are full of vile hateful rants against non-believers. Should they be banned as hate-speech? Curiously, you are guaranteed to find many people who want one banned, but not the other.

@Strangerland

I don't think you know what a euphemism is. It's a word used to make something sound better than what it actually is

I used this word exactly in this context - "to make something sound better than what it actually is". Read more slowly and attentively.

they are always free to exercise their freedom of speech even if/when people are castigating them for what they say

It reminds me what I've read about the Cultural Revolution in China in 60-70s. People then also could say what they really thought about Mao "even if/when people were castigating them for what they say". Not official courts but overzealous Red Guards were "castigating". I think to people then it did not make much difference. To me freedom of speech it is when you can express your opinion without fear of criminal prosecution or "castigating", official (state courts) or non-official (Red Guards or LBGT groups).

@Steven C. Schulz

The issue in the example of your acquaintance can be explained by the difference in negative and positive rights

Interesting perspective. Thank you!

if you want to ban nazi speeches you have to ban zionist one too. difficult for the USA.

There is no other option but the state of Israel, certainly between the Jordan [River] to the sea there will be one state,” Elkin said

It reminds me what I've read about the Cultural Revolution in China in 60-70s.

Does the article below remind you of Russia, the country introducing the resolution?

https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/07/18/online-and-all-fronts/russias-assault-freedom-expression#290612

I used this word exactly in this context - "to make something sound better than what it actually is". Read more slowly and attentively.

Ahh, sorry, I hadn’t realized you didn’t know what castigated meant.

To me freedom of speech it is when you can express your opinion without fear of criminal prosecution or "castigating"

The correct English would be without fear of ‘being castigated’, or ‘castigation’. But we’ve already established this is a new word for you as evidenced by you strange usage of it here, so let’s move on.

The fact is that it doesn’t matter what freedom of speech means to you, it only matters what it actually means. The term has a defined meaning, and that meaning is purely in relation to freedom of being prosecuted for your speech. You’re welcome to come up with your own definitions that don’t match the real world, but don’t expect the rest of us to join you in your ignorance of the actual meaning of the term.

Freedom of speech in the USA is about freedom from the govt going after you for almost all "speech". "Speech" doesn't mean just talking. It means writing, art, music, etc.

Free speech is not absolute.

causing a panic is not allowed - yelling fire in a full movie theatre is the usual example. That is not allowed. Yelling "fire!" in a field is allowed.

Teaching someone in detail how to make a nuclear bomb is NOT allowed. I'm ok with this.

Teaching people how to be a lie detector test/polygraph is NOTallowed either. I disagree with this.

Making credible threats of harm towards another human is not allowed.

Being mean to minors isn't allowed ... adults is a different thing.

It doesn't protect anyone from dealing with other private people in the USA. Saying stupid things is protected, but if your boss finds out, well, there could be repercussions. The SJW groups have gone crazy, IMHO.

Best of all, we can say pretty much anything about any elected or public figure.

BTW, the JapanToday server that I'm connecting with now is hosted in the USA, Texas. There could be other servers elsewhere for other parts of the world. I didn't do much checking.

Freedom of speech lets us all say things here, with our personal slants. Sometimes just to get a rise from others, who we know have a different opinion.