[SolarCross]

Marxism is racist against the whole human race, everyone.

[ThirdTerm]

'Hitler Fan Club'

In an editorial posted on the publication's website, Sears vowed to "continue to print and deliver 305,000 copies of our paper using private companies and our volunteer army."

In the same editorial, Sears also said that he will soon restart his monthly "Toronto Real Men" meetings to teach men seduction skills and the secrets of masculinity, and is planning to set up "a clubhouse for my Hitler Fan Club."

Popular K-pop band BTS got into trouble after some older photos of a member in Nazi imagery have re-surfaced online. Following a denouncement from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for cede imagery, BTS' management company Big Hit Entertainment issued a statement of apology. Probably the band leader, who wore a Nazi hat for a photo shoot, is a neo-Nazi figure who believes that Nazism is cool and the band also used a Nazi-like flag at a concert in South Korea. BTS has been banned from Japanese TV shows for wearing an atomic bombing t-shirt.

In the statement, Big Hit Entertainment addresses recent criticisms of BTS including: "a Big Hit artist [wearing] an outfit depicting an image of an atomic bomb, a Big Hit artist was shown with headwear displaying a National Socialist (Nazi) symbol as part of a magazine photo shoot in the past" and that "Big Hit artists took part in a performance during which flags depicting motifs reminiscent of Nazi symbols were featured and wielded."

Big Hit Entertainment states that it "does not support any organizations or groups oriented towards political extremism and totalitarian beliefs including Nazism, is against all such entities and activities, had no intention of causing distress or pain to anyone affected by historical events."

In a statement of apology, Big Hit Entertainment further emphasizes that it was " in no way intentional," and that "although all apparel and accessories used during the photoshoot had been provided by the publication conducting the shoot," they offer their sincere apologies for "inadvertently inflicting pain and distress to anyone affected by totalitarian regimes in the past by failing to strictly review the clothing and accessories that our members were made to wear, as well as to anyone who may have experienced distress and discomfort by witnessing an association of our artists with imagery reminiscent of political extremism."

[Victoribus Spolia]

BTS has been banned from Japanese TV shows for wearing a atomic bombing t-shirt.

Thats fantastic.

[Sivad]

So, what exactly is the reason we should still allow free speech for Nazis?

Aside from the dangers of government censorship, it's better for social consciousness and the collective conscience to combat ignorance and bigotry through free discourse with reason and evidence than stifling discourse by suppressing public communication. The other thing is these people do actually have a right to communicate their ideas. You don't just get to decide who has rights and who doesn't, that's not how it works. You violate someone's rights without justification then they're perfectly justified in responding with physical force.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You violate someone's rights without justification then they're perfectly justified in responding with physical force.

Lets not forget that those who become censored in one generation are those generation's martyrs and the next generation's heroes.

The Left better be careful what it wishes for, because if history be our guide, those whom you censor almost invariably get stronger because of it.

After all, people will ask; "If the government is censoring them, there must be something about what they say that they fear." This is especially true if the government is unpopular in the eyes of the people, which is especially true in the west where cockroaches tend to poll higher.

This sort of thing is very attractive, especially to zealous young folks. They want to break the law, be avant-garde, and radical, and if the radical position that is censored by law is conservatism and far-right ideas, well there you have it.....

These acts on the part of these "democracies" will only strengthen the thing they are attempting to snuff out, and that may be be bad for all of us.

After all, I don't want to live under Nazi rule, which is why I don't support censoring their speech.

[Godstud]

@Godstud would probably have us turned in for hate speech for simply questioning this law, meanwhile not seeing the irony of such tyranny being conducted in the name of "protecting people against violence" will at least serve for our amusement as much as it does for our disgust.

This is a nice little lie you can tell yourself, if you wish. There is no "tyranny" being perpetuated towards Nazis for banning their unaddressed bulk mail. I can see how Nazis, racists and bigots might get offended when their freedom to perpetuate hate speech might be inconvenienced(not censored).

After all, I don't want to live under Nazi rule, which is why I don't support censoring their speech.

You still don't understand that this is not censorship. You can't debate until you actually know what that means.

Censorship
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

This is not what is happening in Canada, is it? You are conflating the ban on the tax-payer funded mail service to deliver their hate propaganda in the form of unaddressed bulk mail, as being censorship. You have an intrinsic ignorance of what censorship is. It's hard to debate something if you don't actually know what it is.

[Sivad]

[One Degree]

@Godstud
Please provide evidence this is about unaddressed bulk mail.

[Godstud]

@One Degree Read the article.

[One Degree]

@One Degree Read the article.

I will admit I was not aware of that. It changes the argument but the main issue remains the same. Why should not all ideologies be banned from using unaddressed bulk mail? I would support that. Someone will be offended by anyone’s unsolicited ideology.

[Sivad]

You still don't understand that this is not censorship.

It most certainly is censorship. Suppressing the publication, dissemination, or circulation of information is censorship. There is no question or debate, it's not controversial, if you dispute it then you're just plain wrong.

[Sivad]

Why should not all ideologies be banned from using unaddressed bulk mail? I would support that.

The post office isn't obligated to provide that service but selectively denying a service it does offer to the general public to a specific individual or group because of their ideology is state censorship. You can argue that the censorship is warranted but what you can't do is claim that isn't censorship because then you're either just confused about what the word means or you're redefining it for political convenience.

[Drlee]

I had to think long and hard about the unaddressed junk mail issue. It was a hard conclusion to reach.

At the end of the day I have to stick by freedom of speech. I will say up-front that Canada has every right to restrict speech provided its citizens agree. I have every right to criticize them for it and work to prevent such things in the US.

Free speech is the hardest of freedoms because it is the on upon which all of the others rely. So my argument has nothing to do with Nazis. It has everything to do with what is at the essence of free speech. That is, that it is truly free. The government should not limit speech except in the very rare circumstances we have discussed already.

As I said before, I am convinced that the slippery slope argument can be made here.

Earlier I said that I feared that if this stuff was sent randomly that children may be harmed. I still believe there is a minor risk of this. Perhaps though this kind of mailing offers parents a chance to teach a very valuable message to their children.

I can't find a good reason to support the censoring of speech unless immediate harm can be shown. This is a very narrow definition and this rag-tag group does not seem to qualify.

I feel this is censorship. It does not matter that they still have other options. Removing any discussion from the public arena by the government is censorship. I see this as similar to the net neutrality argument. By allowing certain types of speech to be "slowed" or priced out of the market, effectively censors that speech.

As I said. Canada has every right to enforce its laws in accordance with the will of the people. There is a danger here though. If they look at the US and the sudden rise of far right leadership, the danger is obvious.

[Sivad]

Canada has every right to restrict speech provided its citizens agree.

No it does not. No collective entity has the right to violate the rights of the individual. Mob rule does not make right, might does not make right, only right makes right.

[One Degree]

The post office isn't obligated to provide that service but selectively denying a service it does offer to the general public to a specific individual or group because of their ideology is state censorship. You can argue that the censorship is warranted but what you can't do is claim that isn't censorship because then you're either just confused about what the word means or you're redefining it for political convenience.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Yes, applying it only to specific groups is unacceptable censorship.

[Drlee]

No it does not. No collective entity has the right to violate the rights of the individual. Mob rule does not make right, might does not make right, only right makes right.

At some level I do not disagree. I believe in some universal rights. Mine are frequently dictated by my religious beliefs and the education I received as an American. Nevertheless. Canada is a sovereign nation. Though I disagree with their law I believe that it is not unreasonable. Just dangerous.

[Sivad]

Though I disagree with their law I believe that it is not unreasonable. Just dangerous.

Dangerous is unreasonable. It's also unreasonable for the government to dictate how information can and can't be shared. The sovereign nation of Canada is being completely unreasonable.

[SolarCross]

[Godstud]

Suppressing the publication, dissemination, or circulation of information is censorship.

- No. You are making your own definition of censorship up, to serve your own agenda. I provided the definition, already. If you don't like it, then tough luck. Making the public dissemination of hate speech by a public service not possible, is is not censorship. They aren't preventing other avenues of distribution, just the one paid for by tax-payers, by a government that is against hate speech. The only people bitching are the Nazis and racists, unsurprisingly.

@Drlee I see no "slippery slope", as Canada has had Anti-Hate Speech laws for a long time now, and hasn't had any real problems. Hate speech is a problem, and not dealing with it is more dangerous than dealing with it.

[Drlee]

@Drlee I see no "slippery slope", as Canada has had Anti-Hate Speech laws for a long time now, and hasn't had any real problems. Hate speech is a problem, and not dealing with it is more dangerous than dealing with it.

There is a case for doing exactly as Canada (and Germany + others) have done. Perhaps the Canadian society can handle it better than others. Your governments tend to be more politically integrated.

You have to admit that we in the US are living through a crises of free speech rights. We have just repealed net neutrality. We have the Citizens United decision that essentially said money is speech. We have an administration that absolutely has no commitment to the truth and doesn't even try to fake it. Add to that blatant and unchallenged attempts at voter suppression targeting minorities and we have every reason to hold our free speech rights absolute and inviolable. Even at the risk of letting a great deal of garbage into our information stream. I mean just look at how you know who characterizes immigrants as "rapists" and "criminals".