Quote:
Originally Posted by AGB
Secondly, Godwin's "law" is more of a rule, that states that whenever Hitler is mentioned in the debate, the debate is lost.
|
Actually, Godwin's Law states that as the length of any discussion increases, the probability of someone mentioning Hitler or Nazis approaches one.
Various corollaries people have attached to it (the debate is lost, the person doing the mentioning loses, yadda, yadda) are far more debatable. More importantly, they're not Godwin's law.
And, while such a mention is not relevant 99% of the time it's brought up, it
is relevant in this case. We're talking about government control of speech and of thoughts, and mention of a government (though, I should point out, not by name, and from a person whose speeches were intended to refer to
all totalitarian governments) which is well-known for that control, and for the brutal consequences stemming from that kind of self-protection, is entirely relevant. We like to think that those people were some kind of fiends; they weren't human; it couldn't happen here. But it's not true. They were people, just like us, and it
could happen here. The only thing stopping any form of totalitarianism is the refusal of the citizens to be controlled in that fashion, and all too often, by the time the citizens have realized what's going on, it's too late.
Like the metaphorical boiled frog, it doesn't seem to be a bad thing when it starts. The Nazis didn't say they were going to institute a ruthless totalitarian state and drag their country into a doomed war. They said they were going to get benefits for war veterans. They said they were going to prevent Communists from seizing cities by force (yes, that had happened in Germany). They said they were going to take care of women and children. They said they were going to make life easier for the middle class. And they did all of that. If you look at the rise of the NSDAP, there is very little of significance they proposed that people would not gladly embrace today. People were not only willing but
eager to trade essential liberty for a little temporary security. Do you know what took up most of the Gestapo's time? Sorting out the reports from people denouncing their neighbors. People are no different today. The only thing that stands between freedom and totalitarianism is vigilance -- our vigilance. Our unwillingness to succumb to the temptations of a silken slavery. Our saying "No, you cannot take that right."
Yes, Reverend Niemoller's words
do matter. They mattered when he said them, and they matter today. They matter in this thread. This is
exactly what he was talking about. And in a discussion of censorship and of prosecution of people for their words, it is foolish to ignore one of the past century's greatest examples of a regime that prosecuted people for their words.
Can I talk about Communists instead? How about the USSR authorities who locked dissidents in mental hospitals, because anyone who disagreed with the (loving, protective, giving) state had to be crazy? Are they allowed? Because that's another direction this situation can go. Someone talks about pedophilia, so he must be nuts ... so where else do we decide someone must be nuts? If you're religious, someone putting up atheist billboards must be nuts; if you're not religious, someone putting up religious billboards must be nuts. Are Satanists certifiable? I can see people on both sides agreeing with that. Where do we stop? Is all speech, all writing, except a narrowly-defined mainstream to be declared crazy, and its author de-facto imprisoned?
Over on Fark, I'm arguing with a truther. Possibly more than one, possibly just a few sock puppets, it's hard to tell. Personally, I think the guy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal; actually, he's missing the small drink, and there's some question about the toy. Should he be declared insane, or criminal? Should be be silenced? He has, in as many words, accused the US government of deliberately and intentionally murdering thousands of its own citizens. Should he be silenced because his opinions are out of the mainstream?
There is an old story, almost certainly apocryphal, about Sir Winston Churchill and any number of prominent actresses. According to the story, he asked her if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. She said of course. He asked if she would do it for a pound. Her answer was "What kind of woman do you think I am?" He answered, "We've already determined what kind of woman you are; now we're just haggling about the price." The same is true of silencing speech. If we say "you can't write about
this subject" then we've agreed that we should not have freedom of speech; the only thing left to debate is where the line should be drawn. And when someone can draw the line where you want it, they can draw the line where
they want it.
Where do we stop?
Who do they have to come for before we say "enough"?
I don't want to grant anyone the power to draw that line. That is an essential liberty I will not willingly give up.