US Politics

You are reading a single comment by @miro_o and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

tb

Just had a mind-bending exchange with someone on facebook. Over the last 10 months he's gone from a lockdown critic to full blown conspiracy theorist, which has also led him to believe that Trump has had the election stolen from him and that Amazon, Apple, Google etc pulling support for Parler is an attack on free speech.

I pointed out that Hitler was also banned from public speaking in 1925, and asked whether he would have supported his right to free speech at that time. His response in full:

Tbh, in 1925, without a crystal ball, I would have been very much against silencing Hitler.
In 1925 you had no idea what Hitler would entail, he was perfectly entitled to his voice.
When this all comes out in the wash, you will look back at Biden and DT and the history books will record DT as the hero and Biden as the villain. I know that seems incomprehensible to you now.
You only see history when you look back in hindsight.

•

miro_o in reply to @tb

Clearly banning Hilter from public speaking in 1925 didn’t stop him or his ideas being a problem.

The best argument I heard for not banning Trump from Twitter was:

“Let him speak, enforce the law - prosecute him for inciting violence”

As an ideal I can’t fault that but it ignores some practicalities specific to Trump (it’s not a crime in the US to incite violence and the President has immunity to prosecution).

•

tb in reply to @miro_o

By 1925 Hitler had incited a riot / failed coup and been jailed for it, so that didn’t stop him either. It didn’t stop his ideas from spreading, correct, but the alternative (letting him speak freely in public) may well have seen an acceleration and extension of what happened in the end. You can’t outlaw an idea, but you can try and stop / slow that idea being weaponised.

About

Avatar for miro_o @miro_o started