In khaki uniforms, tall black boots and red arm patches bearing swastikas, about 30 members of the National Socialist Movement were barricaded on one side by SWAT team members at the rally. On the other side of the SWAT officers, a group of about 100 black-clad counter-demonstrators, many covering their faces with black masks, held anti-Nazi signs.
I didn’t realize this had even happened until I read this post by one of my classmates, Michael Thomas, on Productivity Shock. In it, Michael raises some excellent issues:
The principle of non-violence is a fickle paradigm. The neo-nazis were not accused or even arrested for violence, they simply marched. It was the anarchists and the skinheads against racism that were arrested for breaching the peace. It makes me think long and hard about the instinct of respect that I have for those willing to suffer violence without returning in kind. If a group who I so principally disagree with can use this tactic, it is not one that should engender a knee-jerk respect. Consider this:
"In October, the same neo-Nazi group gathered in Toledo, Ohio, for a march they said was intended to protest gangs and rising crime. The situation turned into a riot in which businesses were burned and looted and bricks were thrown at police."What does it say when the mere presence of a group can cause people to do harm to themselves (get arrrested) and to others (the officers). They seem to be able to provoke people with reliable certainty.
This certainly raises the question of what protections does “free-speech” currently guarantee in the US and what protections should this guarantee? If freedom of speech means the government will not intefere with people speaking, it surely must also guarantee the right for people who disagree to also speak out against the speakers. If so, is it appropriate for government money to be spent on police protection for the Neo-Nazis? Michael asks this question in his post:
My first thought was -- Why should the taxpayers of Florida, especially Orlando, have to pay so many officers to keep the peace for this protest group of neo-nazis? Dr. Williams, in a recent article, gives us his view of rights where no one can be forced to pay for another's rights -- that amounts to a violation of rights for the one paying the bill, and a fallacy on the part of the group with the supposed right in question. Therefore, the neo-nazis would not be entitled to have free speech here they infringe on the people of Orlando by making them pay overtime to cops, and bring in outside police control.
My personal thoughts are that people should have the right to free-speech without any interference by government. I also think it is legitimate for police to keep people from harming one another. I also think Nazism is incredibly evil and morally wrong. Where does that lead me in my thinking?
Despite my intense hatred for Nazism, I think yesterday’s march shows a strength of the American/Western legal and political system. If anything, it illustrates why the Nazis were so wrong and why liberty is so right. Lovers of freedom could never have protested against the Nazis and yet these same people allow Nazis to protest against them. Which position is more confident in its underlying foundations? A system of thought that cannot tolerate difference of opinion or that tries to suppress knowledge and information is one that is ultimately corrupt, costly to sustain and morally bankrupt. Ironically, allowing the Nazis to march caused them to unwittingly illustrate the wrongness of their cause.
To draw on a contemporary example, contrast the comparatively minor scuffles that happened in Orlando (disorderly conduct) with the riots and deaths that have occurred in many parts of the world because of the cartoons in Denmark. I would much rather live in a system that allows views I hate to be expressed than one that doesn’t. To illustrate my point, look at this map and ask yourself which color would you prefer to live in?
Hattip to Michelle Malkin for pointing to this…
That’s why David Irving’s recent imprisonment in Austria for denying the Holocaust is so disturbing to me. I think Instapundit gets it right when he says:
I MEANT TO COMMENT on David Irving's conviction for Holocaust denial yesterday, but got distracted and forgot. Mickey Kaus, however, has it about right. I should also note that this further exacerbates the "censorship envy" of the radical Muslims -- with European countries happy to punish some speech that is regarded as beyond the pale, the discussion has shifted from whether censorship should exist at all to when it should be justified. This is yet another reason why a general rule in favor of free speech is actually better for ensuring social peace than a set of rules prohibiting offensiveness.
Despite occasional kerfuffles (like what just happened in Orlando) and some of the murky legal and philosophical issues they raise, I sincerely believe the fact that complex moral issues like these are able to emerge is proof-positive we live under a very robust system of political liberties that rest on solid principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment