The US is the only country with such weird views on free speech, there are many perfectly free (often with better freedom of speech/press scores actually) first world countries with different definition of free speech.
A member of a far-right nationalist party was condemned to a 800£ fine for teaching his pet to do the Nazi salute when he hears "Sieg Heil" and also react to the phrase "gas the Jews", and post it on YouTube.
The trial seems to have been over less than a month after it was opened, but "hellish" is subjective enough that it might still apply.
There are things that are off limits, and they are widely known. You can't dress up or play as a Nazi and pretend you didn't know there'd be consequences. All Nazi-related stuff bar for historical reasons like research, or art, is off limits. I prefer my country free of Nazis, and if that means they get sent to jail for "jokes", fine by me and pretty much the majority of the population.
The nazis preferred their country free of jews, and many, if not the absolute majority definitely the majority in power, were fine by that.
This is one case where an equivalence argument is actually valid. To be blunt: your view is dangerous and ought to be regarded as reprehensible by anyone who actually values a free society.
Paradox of tolerance, fellow human. If you allow Nazis, who are anti-tolerant, violently so ( and as you said, they'd remove all Jews), to do whatever they want out of tolerance, they won't respond in kind, they'll abuse that tolerance until they're in power and usher in their intolerance. You cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. Even Goebbels himself said it, they were going in the parliament as a wolf in sheep's clothing to destroy democracy from within with democracy's tools.
Furthermore, it's a bullshit false equivalency that a Nazi, who wants to at the very least discriminate people, is somehow equal to a random person who would get discriminated against. Or a racist and any random person. Those are not the same, and don't deserve the same protections.
Yes, yes. Popper always ends up trotted out by the people most interested in framing their censorious impulses as somehow above scrutiny.
Let's call this the paradox of rationalization: those quickest to engage in the behavior tend to be those whose motives for doing so are the least genuine and trustworthy. And anyone with access to the levers of censorship must earn a high degree of trust.
When did anyone suggest allowing Nazis "to do whatever they want"? Suggesting that people ought to be allowed to voice reprehensible opinions without fear of government locking them up isn't the same as suggesting they be allowed to do whatever they want.
It's not a bullshit false equivalency: every nazi is more or less just some random person with an opinion. Just like you and I are random persons expressing an opinion in this forum. At least, right up until they take action to commit violence--but that's a separate matter.
> This is one case where an equivalence argument is actually valid
Yes, absolutely, banning Nazism is 100% equivalent to killing Jews. Freedom of speech definitely depends on letting nazis spread their views. Declaring that nazis are bad for society is a dangerous view.
The constitution (including amendments) is almost unique in that it makes actual guarantees about your right to freely express yourself, even if you views are controversial and out of line with the views of the government. That doesn't make it divine, but it does make it special at the moment. Hopefully the rest of the world wakes up, but I see few signs of that happening (although Dominic Raab in the UK has indicated that freedom of expression will be the top priority when laying out the British Bill of Rights which has been promised since brexit).
American Civil Religion is a powerful drug. Funnily that and their deification of "The Founding Fathers" smell a lot like the absolutist models of Kings and their Divine rights, while being the opposite.
We recognize the Founders for having the courage to throw off the yoke of an oppressor, and succeed. We honor them for then in the same lifetime laying out a blueprint of government that has reasonably withstood the test of time and managed to remain flexible in spite of some serious adversity.
Is it showing it's age? Probably, Is it long overdue for a strong reaffirmation? Probably also. Does it instill in any one particular dude the absolute unquestionable right to rule over anyone else? No. No it doesn't.
The American Experiment, though the institutions of today hedge more on the side of "we'll be the judge of whether you can do that" was fundamentally a novel effort at it's time. It enumerated the Governments specific powers and limits, then dumped the rest of the power in the people to do with as they will.
I mean the first comment literally said "America is the only country with such views" so yes, that makes them special by definition? Or are you saying that the way America sees free speech is common, which would contradict the earlier claim that it isn't
The person in the US can find another job. The person in jail doesn't have such luxuries.
Also, when the woke people take over your government, there's no bright line rule that says, "You can't put people in jail for speech." Now you don't lose your job for disagreeing with the latest woke positions, you go to jail. In the US that bright line rule does exist, so they are limited to just trying to get you fired from your job.
It's obvious to me who has better freedom of speech.
