burschenschaft
I don't know how many of you already heard of these student fraternities, but we got many here in the german speaking countries. 'bursche' means something like 'lad' or 'young boy'. so only male students are allowed.
there are many very powerful fraternities like 'Olympia' and 'Germania'. I think you already know where this is going; right-wing extremism and neo-nazism. for example, Olympias' motto is: honour, freedom and fatherland. they celebrate the germanic culture and their apparently superiority. fencing is also a very important part of these fraternities. so when you decide to dedicate your life to the burschenschaft, you get a 'schmiss'. a schmiss is a big scar on your face after you got hit by a sword. they keep in touch with right-winged politicians all over the world. and you may wonder why are they still legal. I really don't know. well and today the WKR-Ball is going to take place. wiener korporations ball (vienna corporation ball) right-winged politicians and members from different burschenschaften from all over Europe are going to celebrate tonight in the Hofburg. it's the central building in Vienna where the Habsburger lived and the seat of the Austrian president. oh and today's also the commemoration day of Auschwitz. pretty disgusting, huh? EDIT how about extending the discussion about whether right-winged extremist ideas fall under the freedom of opinion or not. |
Those wacky krauts.
|
LOL imagine if one slipped!
|
:
|
:
:
|
It is not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of the audience to listen. Every time you silence somebody to make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. And you are hurting me, specifically, because I want to hear it. I want to know what they think and I want to know who it is who thinks in this way. With the right to free speech that these people have, you have come to learn what they really think, and denying that right doesn't change that or make them go away. It just allows you to be happily ignorant of the existence of such people. Which is surely a far worse problem.
John Stewart Mills said that if all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it becomes even more important that that one heretic be heard. Because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous and appalling view. Also put well by Rosa Luxembourg who said that freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently. |
But what about those that speak out with views dangerous to other people, I'm not talking about the downfall of an institution, but the destruction of peoples lives, should these people be tolerated to speak out?
|
Yes.
|
Of course.
|
Words cannot hurt you. The only form of expression that can actually harm people are extremely flamboyant gestures, and even then, only up close. I've seen it happen.
Actions hurt people. And someone who can be persuaded with mere words to harm people was already dangerous. Even threats. The threat itself does't harm you (though it may spark a cycle of psychological self-harm), but it can serve as useful intelligence regarding your safety. A warning, if you will. A threat is nothing more than the broadcasting of intentions. Much better than an unforeseen attack. Again: much better to know who these people are. They still think that way whether or not they are allowed to say so. There is a British historian called David Irving. He is a holocaust denier. He has been deported and banned from more countries than I can name for his views. Between 2005 and 2006 he was actually in prison in Austria for them, for violating an Austrian law that only one version of World War II history is allowed. He didn't actually say anything, and wasn't accused of it. He was accused of perhaps planning to say something. As far as I can tell this is not just the suppression of free speech but the legislation of thought crime as a punishable offense. I don't care how wrong or disgusting or offensive his views are, they are not nearly as so as this tyrannical suppression of ideas. The worst result I can think of for having heard them is to wonder how it is one actually knows that such a holocaust really took place, to which the correct response is to investigate for yourself how it is that anyone ever knew it, which is no bad thing. Again, we benefit from hearing these minority views. But suppose you did you investigation and found that he was right? With all the consequences that that should entail. Suppressing minority view is perhaps even worse if they re right, but you cannot know if they are right or wrong before you hear it, and before it is allowed loose in the public forum. Which cannot be allowed by those with the censorious instinct. Whether or not an opposing view is right or wrong is far from the minds of such people when they crack down upon them. All they care about is control of our thoughts. |
This is true I suppose, but...and this is key here, if the suppression of a dangerous view stops people from accepting it and this causing harm to others, is that good? For example, what if Hitler had been kept in prison and his writing apparatus had been removed, if the NSDAP had remained outlawed and members such as Goering and Himmler never assimilated. The mass suppression of these characters would have stopped World War II.
|
Meaningless hypotheticals.
|
More so a scenario in which you can't contemplate an answer without ruining your previous assumptions.
|
Not really.
|
As far as I am aware, Hitler never even said anything too radical prior to becoming fuhrer.
|
Define 'radical'.
|
:
As Bullet Magnet said above: :
People should always have the right to their opinions, but when they actually begin to cause physical damage that becomes a different matter. There is a difference between suppressing views and preventing them from causing physical harm. :
|
It goes back to what George Orwell said as posted by WoF. Once you agree that the existence of certain ideas is a danger to democracy's survival and that they need to be suppressed, you yourself become the greatest danger to democracy, as your misguided efforts create a totalitarian tyranny.
Has anyone ever read or seen Robert Bolt's play A Man for all Seasons? It is about the trial of Sir Thomas More, who refused to go along with the "heresy" of King Henry VIII divorce and leaving of the Roman Catholic Church. He ended up on trial, and he and his future son-in-law William Roper were aware of the corrupt Richard Rich's intended perjury and that it would lead to More's execution. Roper pleads that More have him arrested first. But More states that Rich has broken no law, MORE: And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law! ROPER: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! MORE: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! Every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else you in potentia create a rod for your own back. Once you've established this precedent or made this legal exception, how long can you trust it will not be used against you as well? When some maleficent force makes its way into power, it's journey eased by these very anti-speech laws you helped create, and then uses them against you? What are you going to do then? The most salient question is this: to whom to do you award the right to decide which is the harmful speech or who is the harmful speaker? To determine in advance what the harmful effects of such speech might be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To decide for you what you should be able to read, to delegate the task of deciding for you what you can see and listen to? To absolve you of responsibility to hear what you might have to hear? Do you know such a person? Does anyone? Are there any nominees? I don't think that I'm assuming too much to believe that no one does. Any law, and they already exist in Britain and Canada and other countries without a First Amendment equivalent, requires that there be such a person. And such a law invites us to be liars and hypocrites and to deny what we know already. About the censorious instinct we already know all we need to know and we have known it for a long time. |
Freedom is nothing without consequence. Exercising ones freedom to say something extremely offensive necessitates the acceptance of the consequences such a freedom will cause.
You may be free to call me a bastard, however, I am free to punch you in the face, in turn, the state is free in incarcerate me for breaking the law. Freedom is bound by causality, too few people understand that. |
:
|
He...is free to do it though, because he can do it, after he has done it, there will be a punishment, but that doesn't mean he isn't free to do the act. Besides, he could punch someone in the face in the dark with no one around, in which case he got away with it.
|
Not in the context of what we're discussing, no. We're talking about a situation that limits what people can say. In this situation, there is nothing physically constraining them from saying the words that will get them in trouble. It's the government mandated response to saying the words that we are discussing, and that's what we mean when we talk about freedom to do this or that.
|
Ah fair enough, I have a tendency to forget guidelines and wander a bit in arguments. =P
|
You're not forgiven.
|
I never begged your pardon.
|
It was implied. And you're not forgiven.
|
Well you misconstrue my intentions. Don't worry though, I forgive you.
|
You've misconstrued your own intentions, and your refusal to not forgive me is noted, and also not forgiven. Also that time you touched yourself. Not forgiven for that either.
|
It doesn't matter, God will forgive me...no wait...
I missed this. |
Ah, forgiving, such a Catholic thing to do :)
|