On the same night as Kristallnacht had been seventy-eight years before, an alt-right group posted a list of addresses and contact information of Jewish individuals living near Berlin. German authorities addressed Facebook, where the hateful message was posted, and eventually the post was deleted. At first, however, Facebook declined to remove the post; only public pressure could convince Facebook to delete.
Germany’s strict banning of all hate speech is one of the Holocaust’s better legacies. After clearly experiencing the link between discriminatory language and actual mass violence, German opts less of the side of freedom of speech when compared to the United States. Is Germany going about this the right way? Should the U.S. adopt similar standards, especially with the rise of hateful rhetoric and hate crimes after the election of Donald Trump? Are there other ways to prevent atrocity, besides judicious, well-intentioned censorship?
Original Article Here
BYU Kennedy Center Live 
When it comes to hate speech and/or slander it is very complex because it in a sense contradicts freedom of speech. I think it is important for communities, cities, countries, etc. to do its part to eliminate hate speech because hate speech can lead to hateful acts which we all know ends badly. There is a fine line though that I think we need to keep in mind that people can and will have their own opinions but how far and extreme can these opinions go before they become hateful?
Freedom of speech is a fundamental element outlined within the constitution. Denying citizens the right to practice their freedom through their speech would be directly contradicting the first amendment to the constitution. Fighting hate speech would not solve the actual root of the problem: hate.
Limiting free speech is a slippery slope. In recent years, we have seen the rise of ideological limitations on speech. For example, someone may express their views only to find themselves being attacked and villified for not being “politically correct.” I do not endorse or support hate speech of any kind, but even small limitations can lead to big ones. However, I believe German officials made the right call, as the Facebook post infringed on these peoples’ right to safety and life. Any lunatic would be able to locate their homes and threaten their lives. I understand that Germany is attempting to limit speech in order to preserve all of its citizens’ right to life (“no hate speech, no genocide”), however, free speech that does not directly or immediately threaten or harm someone, is a democratic right. I believe this includes hate speech, as terrible as it is. If we start limiting speech, we will be able to label anything we don’t agree with as “hate speech” as we have seen people do with the label of being “politically incorrect.”
Such a hard call. I think the that Americans and Germans feel really differently about this issue because they have different experiences. Germany has experienced first-hand the terrible extremes that hate speech can lead to. I have also read articles in which they debate the definition of hate speech. Some people think it is simply a way of expression, others say that is it fundamentally an aggression to another human being, and as such, it should be prohibited. My own experiences tell me that the root of hate speech is ignorance and the true weapon to fight it is not limiting our right of expression but rather emphasize education. Early education that exposes people to what is different and who is different from them.
Both of the former comments seem to get at the heart of the argument of free speech. One side will support the idea that free speech is a necessary right. However, as was also mentioned, if you take away someone else’s freedom of speech, then you have gone too far. How can we find a ways to both protect freedoms and protect people. Many say that the pen is mightier than the sword. I find many historical examples that will corroborate this idea. This makes me disagree a little with the idea that fighting hate speech can influcence actual hate. Of course, stopping the language will not fundamentally change everyone’s minds, but it can keep ideas from spreading. In my opinion, though, one way to fight hate speech is not to only restrict that speech, but to promote better speech. If we can promote peace, love, and tolerance with more voices speaking for good than for bad, then it could be a way to allow for free speech, but promote a better use of free speech.
Hate speech is one of the things not covered by the US concept of freedom of speech, along with slander and things that could incite violence or encourage the audience to commit illegal or dangerous acts. I think the US should actually become more strict on hate speech because it has become a common sight on many internet Websites, especially anonymous servers. Germany is doing the right thing and Facebook should have been more compliant.
Another challenge not being talked about with this article is the idea of freedom of privacy. The giving of a person’s personal information can lead to harmful effects. I feel that was the main reason this post was removed. This is a concern for public safety. Hate speech is fine, it gives rise to contrary opinions and to understand what people believe but putting other’s in harms way is dangerous and wrong.
Another thing to consider in this article is how Facebook declined to remove the post initially and that it was only by public pressure that convinced Facebook to delete the post. If Facebook knows that one of their users is going to display something as hateful and disrespectful like this and not it is going to cause a lot of commotion then why do they allow their users to even display something like this. Personally, I think social media businesses should filter what their users are putting on the internet.
The alt-right is more threatening to me than ISIS or Russian aggression or socialism, especially in America. America is a nation of immigrants, and the American dream is fundamental to our nation’s moral fiber and our place as a bastion of hope for the world. The alt-right seeks to destroy America’s very identity and meaning as a land of the free. That the alt-right crosses borders through Europe is also very concerning, and this Kristallnacht anniversary post is despicable.
Agreed that censorship is a very slippery slope. However, with a country like Germany – without the same Bill of Rights our citizens enjoy, and one who still feels the very real aftermath and effects of the second World War, that took place altogether not very long ago – I think that their leaders acting in a way they deem most appropriate, have the right to do so. Germany is a republic and so if their government officials feel best in taking these measures, they ought to. As Americans, we perhaps take for granted the freedom of speech we enjoy in relevant consistency, even in ways that could be disputed by other free nations (example A: the rhetoric of President-elect Donald Trump’s speech), so I think that for both reasons we are in no place to deny other countries’ prerogative to.
As much as I find the rise in hate speech disgusting and do believe that it does lead to mass violence, I don’t and won’t ever agree with government censorship. Freedom of speech is one of the core pillars of what our country is built on, and its important to society and individuals to be able to express themselves
What I do believe is creating a culture of self-censorship. We shouldn’t be okay with friends and family posting hurtful messages about anyone, be it a group of people or a specific individual.
Censorship on the whole is a bad idea. We all are entitled to have opinions and to voice them. We are not all entitled to act on them if they infringe on the safety or liberty of other people. I do agree that removing this post was the right thing to do, and that our freedom of speech may have different limitations on the internet than in other forms, just because it is so easy for such information to spread so quickly.
I don’t think the US should start enacting hate speech censorship. That really wouldn’t solve the problem and would infringe on our fundamental freedoms. Monitoring the occurrence of hate speech on social media would be a good idea I think, just to stay aware of what people are thinking and feeling, but it shouldn’t be limited. Just because one person has a different opinion than somebody else doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to share that opinion, and I’m afraid that is what will start happening if hate speech laws are enacted.
We live in society with little privacy. If someone wants access to something they will most likely receive it. It’s obvious that these posts should not occur. But we do have freedom of speech and that needs to be respected no matter how cruel or vile something might be. I personally don’t think the post should have been deleted. They knew what they were writing as they posted it. People just need to follow J.J. Watt’s counsel, “Read each tweet about 95 times before you send it. Look at every Instagram post about 95 times before you send it,”. That will make things like Facebook better instead of getting caught up in the moment.
Words often lead to action, and freedom of speech (as fundamental to the constitution as it may be) can act as a gateway to dangerous hate crime. I’m not opposed to freedom of speech, by any means. However, I do feel that there should be a limit to what people can say about others, even if it is only opinion.
As long as there are limits to censorship such that freedom of speech is not completely taken away, I think strict regulations on preventing hate speech are appropriate, because they keep society in check. Hate speech is extremely incendiary, and is made more dangerous by the fact that it sparks and fules disputes slowly but steadily, so we underestimate its danger.