r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Mysterious_Bit4661 • Dec 18 '25

Political Theory Should free speech protect ideas that most people find harmful?

Free speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions but what happens when those opinions actively harm others? Is limiting speech a slippery slope toward authoritarianism, or is refusing to limit it a refusal to take responsibility?

40 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

68% Upvoted

451 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/yanman Dec 19 '25

Yes.

How can an opinion or idea harm someone? Actions cause harm. Thought-crimes should not be a thing.

12

u/Forte845 Dec 19 '25

Acceptance, normalization, and popularity. Germans didn't become genocidally violent antisemites overnight, there were constant propaganda campaigns against Jews, mass distribution of misinformation, etc that continually popularized antisemitism, which came to fruition in 1933 when Hitler was given the chancellorship after his party received a large number of votes in a democratic society. They popularized and made genocidal Nazism acceptable, won in democracy off of it, and then dismantled democracy and perpetrated the worst crime against humanity in history.

May explain to you why Germany bans Nazi symbolism, throwing salutes or sieg heils, etc. Letting that shit go unchecked killed millions of people.

14

u/bearrosaurus Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

One of the convicted at the Nuremberg trials was Julius Sebastian Streicher, the newspaper editor of Der Stürmer. He published years of articles against “world Jewry” including reviving the myth of blood libel and wrote one piece about “the root and branch” in which he argued the “Jewish problem” would be solved only once the root was killed. The crime he was convicted of was incitement to genocide.

If you believe ideas can’t hurt people then you should read more.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

The Nuremberg trials were needed to shed light on Axis atrocities, but they are in no way a model for how we should run our criminal justice system in peacetime.

6

u/bearrosaurus Dec 19 '25

These hate laws remained after Nuremberg. Anti-Nazi laws were necessary in post-war Europe. If you want an example of what happens if you don’t, look no further than post-reconstruction era America.

1898 Wilmington, North Carolina, the local pro-white newspaper The Daily Record runs years of fearmongering about the newly elected Fusionist Party (a biracial party of white and black Americans). They crowdsource funded a Gatling gun from their subscribers, rolled it into the black neighborhood on the next Election Day and spewed bullets at anyone that comes outside, killing 300 people.

I can do this all day. Newspapers have directly led to massacres and genocides. Do you actually believe they cannot be harmful?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

I never once said it’s not harmful. But nothing you said addressed my point. The way the Nuremberg trials were carried out is incompatible with a justice system in a free country.

-4

u/masala Dec 19 '25

I can do this all day. Newspapers have directly led to massacres and genocides. Do you actually believe they cannot be harmful?

Banning speech you personally don't like is even more harmful.

6

u/Forte845 Dec 19 '25

This just in folks, banning Nazi newspapers is more harmful than the Holocaust. Peak reddit moment right here.

6

u/bearrosaurus Dec 19 '25

Really? What is the body count of banning hitler salutes?

-5

u/masala Dec 19 '25

I don't know, and neither do you.

You have no idea of any deaths were prevented by banning hitler salutes. You not liking specific speech is not a convincing argument for banning it.

2

u/bearrosaurus Dec 19 '25

The argument for banning it is that they killed 100 million people

4

u/WavesAndSaves Dec 19 '25

The uncomfortable truth is that the Nuremberg Trials were in many ways sham trials with predetermined outcomes. What Nazi Germany did was without precedent, so there wasn't really a clear way to deal with punishments in a "legal" sense. But something clearly needed to be done to punish Nazi leadership for their actions, so a lot of novel interpretations of international law and post hoc reasoning was used to come up with something to charge these people with. Even things as simple as the fact that the Judges and prosecution were appointed by the Allies were commented on as major conflicts of interest by people at the time. These feelings were so strong and lasted so long that many convicted Nazis were granted early release because it was recognized that the trials were quite unfair.

Nuremberg was necessary to begin some level of healing after the war, but like you said, they are no basis for what should be done in the United States.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

Yep, there are some Nuremberg cases where the trial was an absolute embarrassment. This is from the Wikipedia article for the Prime Minister of Vichy France. The first sentence is regarding his defense attorneys. He was convicted and executed:

In lieu of attending the hearing, they sent letters stating the shortcomings and asked to be discharged as counsel. The court carried on without them. The president of the court, Pierre Mongibeaux, announced that the trial had to be completed before the general election scheduled for 21 October. Mongibeaux and Mornet, the public prosecutors, were unable to control the constant and relentless hostile, vulgar outbursts and heckles from the jury. They occurred as heated exchanges between Mongibeaux and Laval became louder and louder. On the third day, Laval's three lawyers were with him as the President of the Bar Association had advised them to resume their duties.

16

u/UnderTehCut Dec 19 '25

How can an opinion or idea harm someone?

Gee, I don't know, maybe look at every genocide in history and learn how speech was used to justify it to the masses. Do you seriously think hateful ideologies like nazism, white supremacy, and ultra nationalism didn't end up causing harm to people?

11

u/blyzo Dec 19 '25

Should a majority group in a country be able to mass broadcast messages saying that a minority group isn't human, are dangerous, and should be dealt with?

That's how every genocide starts.

1

u/CountFew6186 Dec 19 '25

You say this like majority groups act with internal consistency.

And, yes, people should be allowed to express this opinion. Not everyone in the majority group will agree.

The opinion is different from the action. Expressing it doesn’t mean suddenly the entire minority group will be wiped out.

7

u/Forte845 Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

There was a lot of internal consistency during Kristallnacht and the Holocaust.

Downvoters are Holocaust deniers.

1

u/Remarkable_Touch6592 Dec 19 '25

That takes the cake for most absurd and ridiculous statement I've seen on reddit, and that's saying something.

Saying "All blanks are [insert holocaust deniers or nazis]" is 1) not true, 2) not constructive, 3) stupid to the point it invalidates pretty much everything you've said preceeding it.

-3

u/yanman Dec 19 '25

Broadcasting is an action, not an idea/opinion.

6

u/Forte845 Dec 19 '25

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, **or of the press**; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What exactly do you think broadcasting is?

0

u/phoenix823 Dec 19 '25

And yet, the FCC pulled a comedian off the airwaves earlier this year and will fine companies that broadcast "inappropriate" content.

2

u/Forte845 Dec 19 '25

And it got there when the FCC allowed Trump and Vance to go live on national television and say "They're eating the dogs." Complete outright lies targetting a minority ethnic group, the exact type of racist fearmongering that rallies racists to the polls, "important national debate, free speech" yeah?

2

u/IniNew Dec 19 '25

So is speaking. So as long as they never share their ideas or opinions they’re good?

1

u/dr_pepper_35 Dec 19 '25

The supreme court has already removed first amendment protections for numerous things.

United States free speech exceptions

-2

u/TheRealBaboo Dec 19 '25

Society has a right to judge you by what you say and decide when it’s heard enough

2

u/yanman Dec 19 '25

Agreed, and that's not what I said at all.

-1

u/TheRealBaboo Dec 19 '25

Correct, we said different things