A First Amendment absolutist would say that banning bad ideas is counter-productive and that they need to defeated in the discourse of the public sphere.
Others might suggest that, due to their nature, Nazism and white supremacy are not just “bad ideas,” but rather ideas that fundamentally espouse violence toward others. They would point to the incident in Charlottesville as the “natural consequence” of these ideologies.
What would “banning” ideas mean, from a practical perspective? In Germany, they have outlawed the “use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations” as well as the “means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”
In the case of Germany, banning an idea means having the government declare an organization unconstitutional and then prosecuting the propagation of that organization’s ideas. How well that notion sits in your stomach will likely affect your perspective on this issue.
So, I ask, should the United States government ban the ideas of Nazism and white supremacy?
In theory I do agree, banning bad ideas is counter productive, but as Europeans like the maker of the Philosopy Tube Olly explains, the Nazis (and I will say also the Dictator communists that also did it) do fall IMHO under the item of “screaming fire in a crowded theater” Those extremists do have as policy to not just to eventually deny that first amendment to the ones the Fascists do think are undesirable. But to also remove them if not eliminate them from a country.
In essence, my point is that it does depend on what the past leaders of a movement or ideology did in the past, when extremists do tell us that guys like Hitler or the past confederacy are their models and resort to violence then it is not the time to fall back for absolutism in the first amendment when that is not what a movement will keep in place if they are allowed to take power.
Nazism is, however, disgusting, and in opposition to decency and civilized behaviour. A company that discovers a Nazi in its employ should fire him. Nazis should be demonstrated against. Good citizens should shun and shame them and refuse to associate with them or do business with them in any way. They can be free to be Nazis, and I can be free to treat them with the contempt they deserve.
Having said that, while Nazism should not be banned by the government, obviously Nazi groups SHOULD be carefully monitored by intelligence agencies. Nazis are violent and cannot be trusted.
Also: any government official who issues a permit to hate groups to assemble in small spaces, should be held accountable for same. Let them assemble in less-photogenic, less-confrontation-friendly spaces.
And: any police force that knows in advance about a planned demonstration, and then watches the demonstrators get off their buses with gear that indicates they plan to participate in violence–from actual firearms to helmets, body-armor, and baseball bats–and does nothing about it!–should face disciplinary action and probably a few lawsuits.
“White supremacy” can sometimes be a slippery term, but I would support a narrowly focused and narrowly interpreted ban on Nazi and certain kinds of white-supremacist speech, particularly when (like trump’s “Mexican rapist” comments) that speech is factually and provably false.
No, this would help white supremacists and nazis. Best thing to do, IMO, is allow them to spew their horrible bullshit, and then harshly criticize and mock them relentlessly.
It’s not even all that effective in Germany aside from stripping the easily identifiable use of symbols. The tiny racist and anti-semitic NPD (National Democratic Party) early this year avoided, for the second time, an attempt to outlaw them as a political party. The reasoning was they were too ineffective to present a threat to democracy but they do hold a seat in the European Parliament.
Some snips from the link, out of the original order:
Then there’s the Alternative for Germany (AFD). They actually are kind of effective in elections. Their far right nationalistic and xenophobic positions provide a good cover for those even more extreme. I’ll just let you read through this study of attitudes in this story about a 2014 study.
Aside from my issues of not relaxing the 1st Amendment if it worked, it doesn’t work all that well. Why pay the societal costs to just make Nazis not so subtly camouflage themselves?
The United States government shouldn’t have to. I would have thought evolution would have taken care of that ignoramus bullshit. I’m starting to question my faith.
(Didn’t you leave?)