We must uphold free speech

The argument

It goes without saying that Nazi beliefs should not be entertained as beneficial contributions to society-but does that mean they should not be expressed at all? The U.S. Constitution, which lays out the inalienable rights of the American people, would disagree. After all, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech-and this encompasses messages widely considered outdated, bigoted, and hateful, like the messages disseminated in neo-Nazi and white supremacist circles today. By punching Nazis-or worse, encouraging people to do so as a society-we adopt a sort of vigilante justice system that infringes on American citizens’ most basic rights. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to ideologically oppose Nazism, but using violence to silence its supporters is both unconstitutional and immoral. Perhaps even more worryingly, doing so may become a slippery slope in our society as a whole. If we begin to strip away one group’s freedom of speech, the rights of the rest of the population may become endangered. Thus, we must oppose Nazism in ways that do not resort to violence, but instead support the fundamental rights of even the most immoral members of the larger community.

Premises

Counter-arguments

As of right now, there are no laws in place dictating that Nazis may not express their beliefs. Their 1st Amendment rights ensure that they are perfectly free to do so. However, this does not mean that they will face no consequences for their hateful rhetoric. Put simply, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. This effect can be seen in other areas of society. For example, a person has the freedom to confess to a robbery or threaten to assassinate the president, but they are not free from the legal and social repercussions of their words. Additionally, this argument provides no justification for the importance of upholding the U.S. Constitution; it simply treats it as a good in and of itself, rather than explaining why it is just or beneficial.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The First Amendment constrains government, not private individuals, so it is the wrong instrument for this question. That the state may not prosecute someone for expressing these views says nothing about whether a passer-by may strike them — assault is already unlawful, on grounds that have nothing to do with the content of anyone's speech. [Rejecting P2] "Unconstitutional" repeats the same category error, and "immoral" is asserted rather than argued. The slippery-slope claim then describes something that is not happening: punching someone strips no one of free-speech rights, because no legal protection is removed. The strongest version of the concern — that political violence, once licensed, is not confined to the targets its advocates intend — is available here and is never made. [Rejecting C] The conclusion attaches a defensible position to reasoning that does not reach it. Opposition to vigilante violence rests on the state's monopoly on force and on what follows from abandoning it, not on a provision governing what the state may do — and the argument never engages the case actually made on the other side, which concerns imminent threat rather than speech.