Why is that argument not, essentially, the one that Trump made equating Nazis with the opponents of Nazis? It refuses to note that there is as bright a line as could possibly be found between the advocacy of denying rights to people, of advocating the oppression, subjugation, exclusion and murder of entire groups of people and those who oppose all of those things contained in Nazism, white supremacy, the KKK. What there is is no real difference between that assertion of equivalence and the one Trump relied on to support torch carrying Nazis rallying in an American city, organizing and proselytizing others to join them in destroying the rights and threatening the lives of people. Yet, that is the lie that the "civil liberties" industry has used to justify ITS enabling of Nazis in even stronger ways, with the force of judicial orders, than Trump could.
It is also not true. If there is one thing that is obvious, Nazis could be denied the right to organize, to proselytize, to advocate attacks on and the murders of Black People, Jews, LGBT people, the subjugation of women, totally and effectively and not one of the people in those groups would suffer a thing except being safer from Nazis. If the KKK had been effectively crushed in its infancy many people would certainly have stood a better chance of living and gaining safety and security. If the propaganda that revived it after it had gone moribund, Birth of a Nation, had not been made, if the backers of the film had rejected it, it is very likely that the increased outbreak of lynching would not have happened.
Hate speech is not, in any way, comparable to speech that advocates equal rights and equal justice under the law.
I will have more to say about that Holmes dissent later.
No comments:
Post a Comment