When thinking about history as a whole and the place of our current events in relation to those of the past, something that I often grapple with is just how recently the events of World War II took place. Though I imagine our world will be discussing and learning about these events for decades to come, it is strange to think that, as young adults, we are only a couple generations removed from these times. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that countries affected by WWII are still evolving from these events, as their citizens try to find the best ways to remind their people of the past and prevent such atrocities from happening in the future.
We have briefly discussed in class the discrepancies between the United States and European countries like France and Germany and their free speech regulations - more specifically, how these countries approach free speech differently because of what they have experienced in the past century.
In Germany, any references to the National Socialist Party or Adolf Hitler are banned or censored. Recently, in 2016, the German Bundesrat has banned the National Democratic Party of Germany due to its Nazi ideologies (Mudde). Even more recently, in 2017, Germany prosecuted two Chinese tourists for performing a Hitler salute in front of the Reichstag building in Berlin (B.R.).
In the United States, however, the tolerance of this speech is handled much differently. In National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), Neo-Nazis in the United States were allowed to march on the largely Jewish parts of the village of Skokie under the regulations of free speech (Oyez). Flags with Nazi symbols are allowed unless violating rules of private property, much unlike in Europe, where displaying the symbol could easily result in prosecution.
There is no denying that there is a significant physical distance between the United States and Europe, and much of Europe and Germany were physically affected by the war more than the physical territory of the United States. However, should this be something significant enough to be considered? Should the United States follow Europe and Germany in their regulations against hate speech and Nazi ideologies?
Image: Flickr.com
B.R. “Two Chinese Tourists are Arrested for Making a Hitler Salute in Germany.” The Atlantic. August 7, 2017. https://www.economist.com/gulliver/2017/08/07/two-chinese-tourists-are-arrested-for-making-a-hitler-salute-in-germany
Mudde, Cas “Germany Wants to Ban the Neo-Nazis of the NPD Again, but Why Now?” The Guardian. March 4, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/germany-ban--neo-nazi-npd-refugees-far-right
"National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786. Accessed 3 Feb. 2020 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786
This issue is so interesting and complex, I think you did a great job writing about this. When I learned in class that the US does not sensor things such as Nazi ideologies/certain hate speech while other countries do, I was really confused and bewildered. I guess I just want to know why the US can't or won't censor these things, because to me, it's a big moral issue. Personally, I think we should take steps to sensor these types of marches/gatherings, especially ones where they fly Nazi flags or promote Nazi propaganda. Thinking of what the Nazi's stand for, how millions of people (particularly Jewish people) were treated, it's abhorrent to me that the US allowed the Skokie incident to occur under the guise of free speech. As we have read for class, we have persecuted people for (in my opinion) far less heinous acts in court cases such as Schenck vs. United States. I understand that the argument could be made that it's a "slippery slope" once we start censoring things, but 1) we already have in the past, we just hide it under "patriotism" and 2) why is the abstract concept of free speech the US clings to that much more important than censoring things that promote anti-semitism, racism, etc.? Especially if other countries can do it without, seemingly, any other problems to free speech?
ReplyDeleteWhile I love the topic you are bringing up and researching, I think your biggest argument against the US following Europe's footsteps to preventing hate speech is that we are not Europe. The United States and Europe are two vastly different countries, they were founded differently, their histories are different, their very foundations are different! Everyone is gonna argue that simply because it "works" in country A does not mean it will work in Country B. Secondly, the Constitution was created to be tolerant of the people that would come to live under it. Do not forget that America prides itself on being a Melting Pot of people that hail from different ideologies and backgrounds. In order to outlaw hate speech (which as we know from class is a huge grey area in our nation's court rulings) there would be an ever growing list of things that all these people form different ideologies and backgrounds find hateful. Not to mention, what happens if People A find something hateful but it happens to be the foundation for People B's religious beliefs? That creates a whole new grouping of problems. I think this topic is interesting, but America is going to need to create its very own path for dealing with hate speech.
ReplyDeleteHi Mia! I think you did well in encapsulating the complexity of reforming the first amendment. The first amendment was written to protect the marginalized, and throughout its course, we have only seen it benefit the few and hurt everyone else. Using doctrines written for a system of power built on white, male, supremacy (similar to countries of Europe) will never benefit those who it was not made for in the first place. I wish I had a suggestion on how to adequately reform the first amendment. The conversation on reform would need to include people who are not simply white, male, or in power. I'm not sure how we could successfully do so, but marginalized voices will not be taken as seriously as voices in power if we do not do something similar to Germany in reforming our free speech laws.
ReplyDeleteThere’s a lot we as Americans can learn from other countries and how they set their laws and regulations, but as Americans, we are very set in our ways. We often look at ideas of other countries but it takes a significant amount of time in order to create a change in our constitution. With that being said I think we do need a see a slight altering to the rule, but we will not see that for the next few years and maybe even longer than that.
ReplyDelete