NBC News Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated Because Nazis! [VIDEO]

NBC News Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated Because Nazis! [VIDEO]

NBC News Thinks Free Speech Should Be Regulated Because Nazis! [VIDEO]

The freedoms we enjoy in this Republic are under attack now more than ever. Case in point, this lovely little gem from NBC News making yet another case for limiting or abolishing our First Amendment rights because ..NAZIS!

Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America

Maybe it’s time we stop defending Nazis.

Seems that two law professors from the University of Alabama, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, aren’t fans of Nazi protestors and have written a book. 

In their new book “Must We Defend Nazis?: Why the First Amendment Should Not Protect Hate Speech and White Supremacy,” they argue that in fact regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place.

According to them, these are the high points as to why our 1st Amendment rights to Free Speech must be limited.

The ACLU is bad because they say that the Nazi’s right to free speech must be defended.

Hate speech causes harm because Milo is mean!

Being exposed to racism can cause stress and high blood pressure among African Americans

Delgado says that free speech rights never protected black people in this country, especially activists of color. Martin Luther King would laugh his ass off at that one.

Hate speech hurts marginalized people, especially all those peaceful protestors being prosecuted for their attendance at the Trump Inauguration protests. 

They claim that regulating free speech will NOT send us down the path to totalitarianism, but instead do the opposite.

If the U.S. would “properly” recognize and deal with the dangers of hate speech, we’d look like France, Germany, or England instead of George Orwell’s 1984!

Well guess what? There are many MANY people who disagree with Berlatsky, Delgado, and Stefancic.

First of all, what they are advocating is hate speech regulated by the listener. As we’ve blogged about here, far too many butt hurt SJW snowflakes are the first to throw tantrums if they hear something from someone they don’t like. Prime example, the stupidity of the protests against Ben Shapiro’s speech at Berkeley.

Secondly, people operate off their own assumptions. Therefore what one individual hears can be interpreted very differently by everyone else.

Third, those who live by the premise that anyone who disagrees with them is practicing ‘hate speech,’ this type of regulation won’t end well for them or anyone else.

Fourth, those who will advocate for this are many of the same folks who will make excuses for terrorism, and think socialism is peachy keen!

Fifth, Exactly who will regulate whom and who defines what speech is hate speech?

It’s a fair question!

Rosie O’Donnell just got into an incredibly crass and vulgar Twitter match against Ben Shapiro. As many have pointed out, Twitter didn’t ban her for her vulgarity and threats, but many others have been banned by Twitter for lesser offenses.

According to those two authors and Berlatsky, hate speech must be regulated MOAR and our 1st Amendment rights have to be curtailed because NAZI idiot protestors hurt someones FEELZ. Wanna bet they have exactly ZERO problems with Rosie’s hateful vulgarity?

Limiting speech didn’t make the colonists lives more equal and fair. Quite the opposite.

Limiting speech didn’t make life more equal or fair for the Jews in Nazi Germany. 6 million DIED because Germany limited their speech and eliminated lives.

Speech limitations meant the opposite of equal and fair in China as was demonstrated by the courage of those in Tianamen Square.

Basically the authors’ premise is this: The Bill of Rights is only great when we say it’s great. We’re happy to throw it overboard when it gets inconvenient and doesn’t fit our socialistic world view.

Question to the person holding the cardboard poster in the photo above. If YOU say something I don’t like, that means I can shut your freedom of speech down right? That’s literally what Delgado, Stefancic, and Berlatsky are advocating.

I don’t like Nazis, I don’t like what they say and what they stand for. But taking away their freedom of speech won’t make them hate less, and won’t magically make life fair or equal for anyone.

Written by

  • Brian Swisher says:

    I stand with The Nizkor Project: the answer to bad speech is more speech.

  • DudeAbiding says:

    Liberals are 100% fine with fascism and totalitarianism as long as they think THEY’RE going to be the ones in charge.

  • Crabtree says:

    My policy on limiting speech is basically the same as what I tell kids to do when splitting the last piece of pizza. One gets to cut but the other one gets to choose which piece he gets. You want to limit speech? Fine, but your ideological opponents get to choose what to ban. And not the nice ones like Ted Cruz who don’t believe in limiting speech, either. Trump gets to decide what gets banned. Or Ann Coulter. Still OK with this? I seem to recall a bit of false reporting the other day claiming that Trump had banned the CDC from using certain words, ostensibly because he didn’t like them or found them offensive. People didn’t seem to pleased with this, which is weird, since it’s exactly what they seem to want.

    • Nina says:

      Excellent points! And yes, isn’t it so funny that a massive tantrum was thrown b/c words banned! The entire Pot Kettle thing seems to have escaped them.

  • Armst says:

    I agree that violent hate speech should be banned. So CNN, CBS, NBC, WAPO, NY Slimes are all immediately shut down for broadcasting fake news (hate speech). Same with Antifa and other George Soros organizations. Politicians who make hate speech are stripped of their office and banished. Any black or woman who calls someone racist or sexist or gay or muzzie bashing is imprisoned for one year hard labor at Coal Camp No 6 and reeducated.
    Merry Christmas.

  • Wes S. says:

    The Weimar Republic already tried suppressing speech for the express purpose of silencing Nazis. How’d that work out for them? Especially when the shoe was on the other foot?

    • Nina says:

      But that was THEN! This time it’s different …. or so they say

    • GWB says:

      But that’s history, Wes! We don’t do history. It would cause us to assume that humans are not blank slates, merely awaiting our indoctrination and manipulation to turn them into perfect beings. Which leads to Utopia, natch. We can’t have those people in the past screwing our perfect future, now, can we?

  • jack burton says:

    The fact that Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic have to lie in their very first opening statement is indicative of the rest of their argument. No one, nada, zippo, is “defending Nazis.”

    There is a world, a universe, of difference between “defending Nazis” and “defending the right of Nazis to speak.”

    Conflating the two into a single issue is dishonest.

  • Alanstorm says:

    If you were wondering why the country is in trouble, there’s your answer.

    Complete f$^&*#%^&* idiots can become professors.

    Maybe we should tighten up THAT process, to ensure that university professors possess working brains.

  • Sam L. says:

    The sign at the top IS “Hate Speech” itself.

  • Alex Bensky says:

    Among the problems with this is that the definition of “hate speech” tends to be broad and to encompass conservative ideas. Meanwhile, the falsely named “Israel Apartheid Week” and other pro-Palestinian activities hurt the feelings of Jewish students but I’m guessing these professors don’t think that speech should be limited.

  • Diggs says:

    It does appear that fascism is finally landing in America. The Democratic Party providing the runway, landing lights, air traffic control, and last but not least, baggage handling.

  • GVF 1111 says:

    #5 says it all. Without a First Amendment or equivalent, speech suppression becomes nothing more than a matter of force and intimidation. Delgado and Stefancic should be careful for what they ask for, since it might be their speech suppressed next time around.

  • MikeE says:

    Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Passed by the United Nations, not exactly a hot bed of right-wing thought.

  • GWB says:

    regulating hate speech would make the United States a fairer, more equal and less hateful place
    Yes. Exactly like surrender and slavery are “peace”.

    Can we start culling the herd yet? Please?

    • Nina says:

      Couldn’t agree more GWB! Interestingly, the author of the NBC article is having a snit fit on Twitter because people don’t like what he wrote. What he doesn’t understand is that no one wants to ban him… they just disagree with his very misguided premise. For some reason he can’t figure out the difference.

  • Tyrone Slothrop says:

    I might entertain stifling Nazis (Not really. Censorship is censorship.) but the fad is to label everyone who failed to vote for the Empress of Little Rock a Nazi. Kind of waters down the meme.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner