CreateDebate


Debate Info

55
38
Sure, free speech and all No way in hell.
Debate Score:93
Arguments:57
Total Votes:139
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Sure, free speech and all (33)
 
 No way in hell. (15)

Debate Creator

Mint_tea(2488) pic



Should wearing the Swastika be protected under Free Speech?

Should someone wearing the Nazi Swastika symbol say they have the right to be protected by free speech?  Would you consider this symbol to be a threat?

Sure, free speech and all

Side Score: 55
VS.

No way in hell.

Side Score: 38
4 points

Freedom of expression maybe, but the provocative flaunting of a symbol which represents one of the vilest political/military movements in world history would, and should be regarded as a willful act of blatant disrespect for the great sacrifice our military personnel made to defeat the Germans, and also to the some 70 million who died during the Nazi conflict of WW2.

Such displays would without doubt inflame emotions and almost certainly result in violent reactions.

Symbols of communist or extreme left political parties have no place in a free democratic society as they challenge the very freedom which enables them to parade their fanatical views.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
2 points

Hello mint:

Wearing a Swastika IS protected under the 1st Amendment.. That means he won't be arrested for it.. But, it doesn't mean he won't get an asswhuppin for wearing it..

excon

Side: Sure, free speech and all
Chinaman(355) Disputed
1 point

Whom is to do the asswhuppin since you already made clear a Swastika is protected under the Bill of Rights. The individual that commits a crime goes to jail. Do you enjoy being the resident fool of this site.

Side: No way in hell.
excon(4253) Disputed
2 points

Hello again, poochy boy:

You don't understand the Constitution.. You NEVER understood the Constitution. Listen up.. The Constitution protect you FROM the government - NOT Nazi haters.

Now, fetch this stick.

excon

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

Wearing a Swastika IS protected under the 1st Amendment..

Of course you are right and correct too that a person exercising his right to wear a Hakenkreuz may expect to get beaten for exercising his constitutional right. America can be a dangerous place and I would advise caution about provoking others.

Side: Sure, free speech and all

The swasktika isn't a nazi symbol in the first place. The irony is, swastika stands for peace and harmony.. It certainly should be protected.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

Yes, that's why I clarified the Nazi symbol as opposed to the more ancient meaning of the symbol. Unfortunately the original meaning was bastardized by the Nazi's to what we know today but I did want to make that clarification.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
marcusmoon(242) Clarified
1 point

Hi Mint,

You wrote, Unfortunately the original meaning was bastardized by the Nazi's

It is interesting that the entire world accepted that change to assume the swastika has the new meaning. The old meaning lasted for possibly more than 4,000 years, then after about 15 years of Nazism, the assumed meaning changed.

Contrast that to the cross, which has represented Christianity and the associated grace of God for less than 2,000 years, but after 150 years of Klansmen burning it in conjunction with horsewhippings, beatings, arson, and lynchings, it retains its older positive meaning.

One might argue that the swastika got a new negative connotation while the cross retained its old positive connotation because the the scope of the damage Nazism did was much greater than the regionalized havoc of the Ku Klux Klan. The problem is that the violence and oppression associated with the cross actually touched more of the world for a longer period of time than did that of the swastika.

Prior to the founding of the KKK, the cross presided over countless acts of violence and oppression for more than 2,000 years.

-- -- For centuries the Roman Empire used it to torture insurgents and dissidents to death.

-- -- Beyond that, as a symbol of Christianity, the cross presided over countless atrocities, including, but not limited to the following:

• The Spanish Inquisition.

• The Crusades (wars named after the cross, (Crux) no less!)

• Witch trials, which sometimes included torture.

• The justification of oppressive military regimes (Divine Right of Kings) and the connected enslavement of the non-noble classes of Europe for over 1000 years.

• Torture and murder of Protestants by Catholics during the Reformation.

• Torture and murder of Catholics by Protestants during the Reformation.

• The theft and oppression of Latin America through forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement.

• The forced conversion, murder, rape and outright enslavement of Native Americans in North America.

• The forced conversion of enslaved African-Americans in North America, and “Biblically supported” justifications for slavery.

-

I don't know what this says about symbols and politics, but it sure points out that despite being an abysmally stupid animal, people sure are interesting.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
2 points

I believe people should be able to say anything, write anything, and wear anything they want.

But I also believe they then are responsible for what happens next. Meaning if you're found guilty of libel or slander you pay for it, if you're caught committing treason or seducing children as a pedophile you pay for it, if a jury finds that wearing a KKK hood or Swastika somehow violated someone else's Constititutional right to exist then you pay for it.

Currently though I don't believe the Swastika itself is banned. It's allowed under free speech. If you believe in what the Swastika stands for then please do, go ahead, wear it, so I and others who disagree with what it stands for can call you out for it.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

Absolutely! Thank you for saying it so well. ...............

Side: Sure, free speech and all
2 points

Of course it should be protected, not allowing people to wear what they want will be quite hypocrite and fascist.

& Swastika means different things to different people.

The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) has been and remains a sacred symbol of spiritual principles in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

But since the 1930s, people think of it as a main feature of Nazi symbolism, and as a result, it has become stigmatized in the West by association with ideas of racism, hate, and mass murder which isn't correct becuz the name swastika comes from Sanskrit (Devanagari: स्वस्तिक), and denotes a "conducive to well being or auspicious"

The misinterpretation of swastika is simple hypocrisy since 20th century.

How can you even be free in a country when you can't wear whatever you want

Side: Sure, free speech and all
Mint_tea(2488) Clarified
1 point

If you read below you will see the reasoning as to why I had specifically mentioned the Nazi swastika.

Your statement:

"The misinterpretation of swastika is simple hypocrisy since 20th century."

makes me curious as to why you think it's hypocrisy and not simply misunderstanding?

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

I don't see why it shouldn't be protected: it isn't inciting criminal activity.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

In a way it kind of is. Just last week a man was knocked unconscious for wearing that symbol of hatred.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
3 points

OK so let's say that the far-right started a "punch a communist" meme to mirror the far-left "punch a Nazi" meme. Would the irrational violent response to anybody wearing the hammer and sickle symbol mean that wearing communist regalia is inciting criminal acts?

To me it's quite obvious that the actual incitement to violence occurred when the "punch a Nazi" meme was propagated.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
Chinaman(355) Disputed
1 point

The symbol of hatred could be an American Flag as it is looked at today.

Side: No way in hell.

Should ANTIFA be allowed to wave Comunist flags, or is that free speech...

Side: Sure, free speech and all
AlofRI(1832) Clarified
1 point

I didn't see that. Must've been on FAUX News?

Anyway YES, they do have that right, and liberals have the right to peacefully protest against them. Anyway, those with the communist flags were likely Breitbart infiltrators. (Kind of like the Breitbart "pimp and pro" that infiltrated A.C.O.R,N. and that MS Democratic political office to tap the phones). They're well known for those tactics, "bait and switch" is their stock in trade.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Side: Sure, free speech and all

Before the Nazis came along, the swaztica was a peace symbol. It dated back a long time before WWII.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

Sure free speech for all. That doesn't constitute orthodox belief in the subject among all the subjects that lie therein subject to that belief system.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

I always have to come down on the side of free speech but this is a tough one. My impulse is to want to beat the crap out of anyone wearing one.

To the nothinghead closet Nazi's that keep repeating each other and mindlessly pointing out that the swastika is or was a peace symbol, yeah I know that it was at one time. I also know that NOW AND FOREVERMORE it's a symbol of genocide and Adolf Hitler and a billion other horrible things so pretending it's ok because it started out as peace symbol is lame and without merit cause it ain't THAT anymore and will be NEVER AGAIN. Did that sink in?

Side: Sure, free speech and all
1 point

I will answer from the German perspective.. in Germany it is illegal to display that simple. There is nothing to be gained from tolerating a philosophy that is so intolerant.

Side: No way in hell.
Amarel(2350) Clarified
2 points

If it is perfectly legal for a person to express even support for ISIS, then your political enemies will identify themselves for you. A Nazi without a Swastika is still a Nazi. The difference is that you don't know it.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
Atrag(5180) Clarified
1 point

I don't think it is legal to support ISIS here. You have a point about making it easier to identify neo Nazis if you allow them to express their views but still the net outcome would be more support for Nazism. Germany has the Verfassungsschutz (protectors of the constitution)0 to monitor such people.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
marcusmoon(242) Disputed
-1 points

Atrag,

There is nothing to be gained from tolerating a philosophy that is so intolerant.

I understand your point, and that is a solidly pragmatic reason to prohibit Nazism, Islam, communism, etc..

Please allow me to insert my particularly American bias into the analysis of your solution.

One problem with this is that, as I am sure Germany is currently experiencing along with so many other European countries, a pass is generally granted to beliefs that are intolerant for religious reasons. This refusal to prohibit expression of religious beliefs, many of which are indeed intolerant, is the result of long experience with theocracies and painful lessons about religious oppression.

Another problem is that once one is intolerant of one set of beliefs, there tends to be scope creep, so that gradually more and more philosophies and ideas are prohibited based on the beliefs, fears, and ambitions of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Generally, the prohibitions become increasingly broad and invasive. It starts with speech, adds practice, and ends with mere suspicion/accusation of belief. More horrifically, the penalties become increasingly draconian.

When the power changes to some other group, there is a backlash. A perfect example of this is the sectarian violence between Protestants and Roman Catholics under King Henry VII, King Edward VI, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth I of England.

Ultimately, it is safest to institute strict laws that make expression of all ideas by everyone foundational to the society. That is the lesson taught by the violence of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Nazi Concentration camps, the Communist gulags, and countless other attempts to prevent people from expressing some "dangerous" idea or other.

Who do you expect to be the most dangerous problem, intolerant citizens or an oppressive government? There is no third choice, and ultimately you have to pick one.

Side: Sure, free speech and all
Quantumhead(850) Disputed
4 points

I understand your point, and that is a solidly pragmatic reason to prohibit Nazism, Islam

Comparing Islam with Nazism? Are you retarded? Hitler was a Christian, not a Muslim.

You idiotic right wing halfwits get more stupid by the goddamned hour.

Side: No way in hell.