It does, but you seem to be hoping to lay the blame for it on the leaders.  No, sorry, no dice.  It works because it -appeals- to us. Those leaders require that dynamic, and the support of their constuency in order to possess a platform. Hitler, in a vacuum...would have been a nobody. It took an army of -dedicated- Nazis to make him who he was, as it were. Perhaps you;d rather believe that they "just didn't want to know" - and so didn't...but that's going to be a hard sell. They did know...it didn't move them enough to end it - they felt that it furthered their goals.....

In the same way, a nutball screaching "death to the infidels" on a street corner is hardly an issue of concern...it's only when people willing to strap bombs to their chest, shout insha'allah, and fly a plane into a building offer their services that it becomes an issue. Its not him, the nutball...it's -them-.

It is true that in the Nuremberg trials nazis claimed they were just following orders, were coerced and therefore "not guilty" - Obviously no sane person thinks the subordinate is not to blame, but the leader holds a big share of guilt in any criminal organization.

(July 17, 2015 at 7:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They did know...it didn't move them enough to end it.

Agreed, hence my calling them cowards. Knowing it doesn't make for wholesale agreement. They knew and were to afraid or too indifferent to act.

Or they were fine with it...some even -happy- about it..you just keep leaving that out.

In any case, to break out of the nazi rut for a moment, it might help to elucidate my position to explain that I think the law should act as little as possible, in the least intrusive manner possible, with the minimum amount of coercion and force as possible, only when absolutely required.

I think that hate speech and inciting to violence oversteps the above by a great deal, not that we don't want to get rid of both, that this isn't a good idea- just that using the law to do so probably isn't as prudent as many believe.

(July 17, 2015 at 7:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Or they were fine with it...some even -happy- about it..you just keep leaving that out.

They were indifferent. It didn't concern them in their vast majority. Being fine with it contradicts every serious historical research.

Okay, no contented nazis...gotcha. Serious historical research that asks the losers of an armed conflict whether they -still- thought the actions of their defeated state were justified? Yeah, you're gonna get some good answers there..lol.

"USA # 1 - am I free to leave now?"

In any case, it was a sideline, not required for my position on free speech, hate speech, and inciting to violence.

(July 17, 2015 at 7:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Okay, no contented nazis...gotcha.

Wow, that's low. Of course there were contented Nazis. But hopefully you get the distinction between 80 million not being murderous bastards and simply towing the line in a dictatorship and hardcore ideologists. Or do you simply love to unpack the broad brush?

The people operating the deathcamps didn't see themselves as murderous bastards either (no more so than I did while plinking away at people who were either so poorly trained or so poorly equipped as to be unable to injure me through my armor when -I- was a soldier).  Please, step outside of your own conceptions....this is what I'm asking you to do.  Because, for no other reason....the inability to do so is precisely the problem with "hate speech" to begin with. Hate speech is whatever the dominant culture determines it to be. It -was not- hate speech to toe the party line in germany, circa 1941 - but it could be hate speech to do so, today, in the European Union or the US. It -would have been- "hate speech" to criticize the aryan master race, then and there. The authorities in power would not have allowed criticism...they didn't. It would be "inciting violence" to start a revolt in a nazi workcamp - it was-. These are the reasons that even though I think these terms do mean something, that we should care about them, we shouldn;t extend -too much- of the power of law in service -to them-. It not only -can- take a turn for the douche...it does so with regularity.

(July 17, 2015 at 7:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The people operating the deathcamps didn't see themselves as murderous bastards either.  Please, step outside of your own conceptionms....this is what I;m asking you to do.  Because, for no other reason....the inability to do so is precisely the problem with "hate speech" to begin with.

No, they didn't see themselves that way. But your example still sucks. Because people could agree with new national greatness without agreeing to outright murder. They could agree with being employed again without wanting to see that working in the military industrial complex ultimately was the preparation for war. They agreed with what they wanted to see and - in their majority - closed their eyes on the ugly aspects. And the murder started literally under the fog of war. Before the leading Nazis didn't dare to take that step. There's a famous contemporary quote by pastor Martin Niemöller, which describes the situation best. I didn't find an english translation, so I'm providing it myself:

Quote: „Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte.“

Quote:Translation: As the Nazis took the Communists
I stayed silent
because I wasn't a communist

As they took the Social Democrats
I stayed silent
because I wasn't a social Democrat

As the smashed the Unions
I stayed silent
because I wasn't in a Union

As they took me
there was noone left
to protest

Niemöller had sympathies for the Nazis in the beginning, because he was a nationalist, but he was imprisoned in a concentration camp from 1937 to 1945.

I've heard that one before, actually, but thanks for a fuller trans.  I would use the same statement as an argument against hate speech and incitement to violence.  

"When they came to take the white supremacists...I stayed silent...because I was not a white supremacist......"

Get it now? It's -easy- to stand up for what you, yourself, believe in (or at least I find it to be easy). It's -easy- to be content when you see your POV backed by authority of law. But to me, my idea of being american, for example. My idea of free speech, and my way of trying to make sure that no-one gets steamrolled, has to do with standing up for people whose opinions I loathe.