From: serb@polisci.umn.edu (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: What about "free" speech
Organization: Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:52:15 GMT

In article <Dec.16.11.24.01.1992.18352@gandalf.rutgers.edu> deatz@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Gregory H Deatz) writes:

>What does "free speech" mean exactly? It means FREE SPEECH. If I have
>something, possibly offensive, to say, I don't expect to be
>prosecuted/persecuted for it. Yet this is exactly what is happening in
>Germany. The fact that Germany is forbidding the use of free speech
>when it comes to talking "good" about racism, especially Nazism, I
>wonder what it is they are trying to prove.

European and German tradition about free speech is different than the U.S. 
tradition -- most of the world is different than our ultra-liberal free 
speech tradition.  One German friend and I have had a long running argument 
where I basically argue your point that outlawing neo-nazi speech was 
inappropriate and probably dangerous since you can't outlaw an ideology.  He 
responded that America has a longer democratic tradition and a political 
culture of more tolerance; some Germans, he claimed, only understand 
Verbote.  This view seems to come from how Hitler took power from a 
democracy, and how free speech involving neo-nazi ideas are undemocratic in 
nature.  That is the inherent problem in free speech -- what if anti-
democratic (and anti-free speech for others) speech succeeds in convincing 
people to vote against democracy?  Then allowing free speech can lead to the 
victory of a group that takes away free speech.  I'm still a radical first 
amendment person, but in the German context I think the hesitancy to allow 
neo-nazi activity is at least understandable.

(some deleted)

>The one thing our government does NOT allow is the use of violence to
>express one's opinion. No matter what your position is on an issue, if
>you use violence to get your point across, you will be punished. On
>the whole, (we have a grotesque share of the corrupt politicians), we
>have proven to the world that a country can exist for over 200 years
>without killing free speech.

Again, what if speech not only condones violence, but effectively leads to 
the spread of violence -- incitement to riot like speech.  That isn't 
necessarily allowed in the U.S. either.  It's always a question of a 
borderline; some speech isn't allowed (the proverbial yelling fire in a 
crowded theater, or slander and libel), and some is.  When is speech 
political, and when is it simply hateful attempts to spread bigotry?  These 
aren't easy questions to answer, and we can't assume that the American 
experience in this is necessarily going to be repeated in other cultures 
with traditions that aren't as democratic.  The Germans have done pretty 
darn good in building a stable democracy in the last forty years, but I can 
understand how many are still wary of fanatics managing to destroy it.

>Now, don't bring in the issue of slavery or indian massacre, but this
>has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Like I said, the USA
>has made enormous mistakes in the past, mistakes for which they are
>paying right now, and will into the future.

True, but perhaps these events can be seen as strengthening your arguments 
because the U.S. has managed to keep free speech even while nazi like 
actions against different racial/ethnic groups has taken place.  It might 
even show the power of free speech to in the long run overcome those sorts 
of views.  I'm not sure I'd argue that, but it's possible.


inal point is that stifling someone's speech is fundamentally
>wrong, when a country's consitution (as Germany's) supposedly protects
>that right. Germany would be no better nor worse off if they chose to
>allow the racists be public.

>So, killing speech clearly shows condemnation of that particular
>speech. ( But this is fundamentally bad) And, allowing all types of
>speech does not condone the use of particular types (Fundamentally
>good).

Again, I basically argee, but it's not necessarily a black and white 
question, there are borders to free speech, and there is a history of its 
misuse and how it can be seen as having helped destroy democracy in Weimar 
that makes Germans wary of especially neo-nazi and anti-semitic speech.

>If you have any responses, don't send them to me. Put them on the
>newsgroup. My e-mail is for more important things. This is play.

- Scott, U. of Minnesota