Pro-Nazi: see Smith Act of 1940. Prior to that see Sedition Act of 1918. Prior to that see the Sedition Act of 1798.
Surely the US government would never suppress constitutionally protected free speech. That’d be as absurd as the President unilaterally suspending habeas corpus for two years before giving it the official stamp of approval with the passing of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863.
The OP specifically asked about this in the US.
I think we can draw a comparison with the recent “Dr” Andrew Wakefield film, “Vaxxed.”
The Tribeca Film Festival at first accepted, then decided not to screen the movie.
They were within their rights both times. I believe the “doctor” has found another outlet for his trash, but in the US, we the people prefer to decide for ourselves what news and entertainment and opinions to consume.
That doesn’t answer the OP.
The film festival isn’t the US government.
Vaccination isn’t a terrorist or enemy issue.
Not directly, no, but I think it speaks to how protected free speech is, in that the government has no say in whether Tribeca shows the film or not.
Yeah. I know. I don’t think you got what I was replying to.
Not to hijack this, but how weird is it that we buy Red Baron pizzas? Complete with the depiction of a dashing and handsome pilot? Isn’t this supposed to be the guy who, after we declared war on his country, moved on from killing Englismen and Canadians by showing that he’d kill an American easy as killing an Australian?
The character in popular culture has grown mythical beyond Capt. Von Richthofen’s actual deeds over the passing of time. Still that factor is not entirely ignored (“Ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, more; the Bloody Red Baron, was running up the score…”)
Plus, even then, once ol’ Manfred was taken down, he was promptly exalted under the old mythos of the gallant “honourable adversary”.
Did you guys ever see Das Boot?
The writer and singer of the song “Peace Train” also said that Salman Rushdie should die for writing his own book, which conflicted with the writer and singer of the song “Peace Train”'s religious beliefs.
Well, not die; be killed.
Peace.
I guess not. I’m still not clear if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with Boyo Jim, or something else.
While sympathetic to the German crew of the submarine, I don’t recall it promoting Nazi ideology.
As far as Nazi films are concerned I remember “Triumph of the Will” being screened at our college theater. And you can buy it and “Kolberg” on Amazon.
Interesting. I am not a lawyer, I would have gotten this wrong. As far as I understand current US practice, there is a concept called a “hate crime”, for which punishments are increased, but apparently that is different from “hate speech”. Though as I remember reading the news, the words an individual used can qualify his/her actions as a hate crime. So as I understand it, one can be punished for saying certain things, even if “hate speech” isn’t a concept.
In general, constitutional rights are rarely if ever absolute. For instance, the famous: “one can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” exception.
Exactly. I’d go see it if it was well-made. Under the “know your enemy” idea. Since when did censorship become an accepted concept?
Pretty much. For example, you can be a member of the KKK and march down the street waving a banner that explains how much you hate black people. This isn’t a crime and it is impossible to be prosecuted for it. But if you attack a black person, and your racist beliefs are the motive for the attack, you have committed a “hate crime.”
Apparently killing someone because you are racist is somehow worse than killing them just for the giggles.
I don’t pretend to understand it.
The difference is the terroristic element–the fear that hate crimes are presumed to instill in other members of the targeted group.
Because a hate crime has the additional intent and likely result of intimidating and threatening an entire group of people into not exercising their civil rights. The direct victim is not the only significant victim of a hate crime. It’s the entire group he or she belongs to, as well as society as a whole, because it creates an atmosphere of menace that chills civil society.
Based on your username, I’m going to assume you will mop the floor with me on this topic. Still, some of those guys had to be Nazis.
I think Das Boot straddled the fence really skillfully in that it depicted Nazi submariners in a sympathetic light without depicting Nazism itself in a sympathetic light.
The question I’m asking about in the OP is about blatant, clear, obvious endorsement of Nazism, ISIS, or some other enemy.