They operate under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which does guarantee freedom of expression, but there’s also enumerated rights in the US Constitution to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ and equal protection under law (14th Amendment) which can be abrogated when another party spreads harmful falsehoods and calls them exercises of free speech (see ‘blood libel,’ ‘holocaust denial,’ etc.).

Being an American, I’m quite aware of the US Supreme Court decision which permitted the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb with a large number of Jewish residents. In their infinite wisdom, the SC made no distinction between hate speech (specifically characterised by falsehood and malice)and free speech- and it is long past due time that they did so.

Sure, ones freedom of speech could be anothers freedom to be pissed off (i.e. – I don’t have to like what someone says) but the debate and respect for and about topic(s) seem to be gone substituted with simply attacking others.

2. Free speech isn’t all roses and sunshine. If you grant the country free speech there are lunatics who will be free to voice their opinions on the holocaust. Seperating free speech from crime is important, currently it is illegal to discriminate or commit a hate crime or to use your example to cause public panic in this country and that isn’t going to change if free speech was entered into the constitution.

As much as I disagree with Nazi philosophy and ideas, I accept that under a guaranteed free speech model there are going to exist nazis who operate within the law by expressing their views. How do you think sites like Stormfront operate out of the US?

Whilst not neccesarily the best canditate to convince people to fight for free speech, I feel that pointing out free speech applies to everyone provided they operate within the framework of the law is something that’s not pointed out enough.

The nazi memorabilia and nazi mum are really rather poor examples to defend the case for anti-censorship. There’s a great big difference between hate speech and free speech. When you use your free speech rights to take away the human rights of others, you really haven’t got a leg to stand on. The UN Universal Declaration on Human rights in fact specifies that one may not use their rights to deny others their own rights.

Trade in nazi memorabilia is a very grey area. There’s no point in pretending Hitler & WWII didn’t happen, but it is fair to suggest that there’s still living people who were profoundly damaged by the acts of the 1923-1944 German nazi party. There’s assholes running around in Australia as we speak who call themselves nazis, claim the holocaust never happened and think this is a great thing- although those in the know understand that anyone who espouses neo-nazism is defending a massive inferiority complex and seeks membership in a group they consider powerful to quell their fears. All the while, neo-nazis seek to victimise certain ethnic or religious groups, attacking what they say is ‘a threat to their race,’ celebrating their wise choices in where they were born and what parents they’d be born to by claiming to be ‘pro-white.’

Free speech is not absolute. Implicit in any right is a responsibility to exercise the right responsibly. You can’t shout false claims of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre due to the danger to the public and neither should you be able to shout defamatory lies about your fellow citizens just because you have some protected speech rights.