(This addition made 11/3/23) For the purposes of this assignment, "repugnant" views are those that slander and denigrate members of vulnerable groups to such an extent as to generate widespread feelings of hatred and anger towards these people to such an extent that, for the foreseeable future, their lives will be significantly more in danger than they would have been had the speech not occurred.
(Following additions in red made 10/23/23)
Self-expression can take many forms. It can consist in one-on-one conversation with a stranger on a bus or in a waiting room, or it can consist of a speech at a mass rally, that may also be televised world-wide. It can consist of social media posts seen by just a few friends, or of posts seen by thousands, millions, or even billions of people, And it can consist of newspaper editorials, and opinion pieces that again may reach billions of people.
Thus, there is a difference between speech that reaches only a few people, and mass speech that reaches millions. "Censorship" consists of preventing people using their own resources to put out mass speech, while "deplatforming" consists of persuading owners of mass media resources, such as newspapers, cable and TV stations, or social media companies to refrain from allowing others to use their resources for mass speech.
It is possible to deny mass speech to certain ideas while at the same time allowing everyone to express whatever ideas they want to family, friends, coworkers, and anyone they might happen to meet.
On 8–9 November 1923, Adolf Hitler led an attempt to seize the Government of Germany. Charged with Treason, he was treated very leniently by the Weimar Republic, in that instead of being executed, or even imprisoned for the mandatory 15 years at hard labor, he was placed in comfortable rooms in Landsberg Prison, sentenced to five years, but let out after nine months, having taken the opportunity to write Mein Kampf. (In contrast, leftists who had attempted to seize power had been executed.) Subsequently, the Nazis received large infusions of cash from German corporations such as Krupp, and Thyssen, were given power by Hindenberg, and gave us World War Two, and the Holocaust.
Arguably, it is very possible that, had Hitler been punished according to
law, and the Nazis been prevented from holding mass rallies, provocative
marches through working class neighborhoods, and other mass-publicity
events, too few Germans would have become Nazified for Hitler to have abolished
German democracy in 1933, and thus WWII, and the Holocaust might
not have happened.
America, along with clearly justified 1914-1932 police action against
anarchist terrorists, was also at that time violently and illegally
suppressing all public speech by even the most peaceful
leftists. This suppression was accompanied with virulent propaganda
against anarchists, socialists, and communists. This campaign was so
successful that for a long period of time merely expressing sympathy for
leftist views was enough to get someone summarily fired or assaulted. Even
today, tarring a person or policy as "socialist" can be a very effective
political tactic.
When a fascist takeover is on the horizon, there is a period in which
action can be taken to prevent the fascists from converting enough other
people to take over, and which the window will be closed, because at that
point the fascists will be using the organs of the state to round up and
imprison or murder their most prominent opponents.
Only the other hand, preventing a fascist takeover will require
suppressing at least some of the free speech of the fascists, which might
mean at least somewhat violating the principle of free speech.
After reading at least some of the following articles, and analyzing at least some of the relevant arguments, write a paper explaining the logical results of your analysis.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/19/why-even-nazis-deserve-free-speech-215508
https://apnews.com/48c9f45fc0bb4979bda992d6ece8a60b
(Red Material added 10/22/23.) Note on Karl
Popper:
Karl Popper opposes the intolerance of
those who would destroy vulnerable people, he doesn't advocate
tolerance of absolutely all forms of speech. In fact, he explicitly
advocates against tolerating expressions of intolerance against
vulnerable people. If you think that Poppers opposition to intolerance
somehow implies that he should support allowing intolerant speech, you
would have to prove that the idea of opposing the kind
of intolerance that results in harm to members of vulnerable groups
should be interpreted as requiring us to allow all kinds of expressions
of such intolerance? Bear this in mind if you choose to analyze the
following article:
When you've thought through the issue as much as you can, write a thesis paper or thinkathon, and turn it in through Turnitin.
Any questions, email me at squiptryx@gmail.com
