It’s a fact that the political scale in many countries of the world is unbalanced and more
leaning to the right. This is enabling people with more extremist ideas to speak up without
being punished. Knowing that Donald Trump may have links with Adolf Hitler is just a
consequence of this growing phenomenon, tongues are loosening. A recent article from
NBC News written by Zoe Richard debunks what we already know about this subject.
The facts related are the following:
Resume
White house chief of staff during Trump admin overheard former president Trump talking
positively about Hitler when he was in office.
Saying that he did some good things more than once.
He describes Trump as a Fascist.
On the other hand, Trump’s campaign spokesperson deny anything that said Kelly.
Adding that Trump speaks highly of veterans and current soldiers.
another spokesperson also denied the accusation of The Atlantic that reported that Trump
admired the loyalty of Hitler subordinates
Whereas his subordinates were loyal to the Constitution and not Him directly for John Kelly
The last event that links Trump and Hitler is in December 2023 where Trump used some of
Hilter rethoric in Mein Kampf. Trump denied having read the text
And now democrats are using this as an attack angle to tackle Trump.
Transition:
This article clearly shows a polemic side of former president Trump and shows that even in
the political sphere, extremist idea are growing and starting to leak. However, one can say
that liberty of speech allows these ideology if it doesn’t interfere with other people (or if other
agrees) and we’ve already seen it other countries, like in the UK or France with the question
of immigration.
Freedom of speech is one of our most valued rights, but what does it truly mean? Does it
allow us to say anything, anywhere? When we ask this question, the quick answer is “No.”
Freedom of speech has limits, and for good reasons. Unrestricted speech can lead to hate
speech, incite violence, and cause serious social harm. However, restricting it too much can
infringe upon individual freedoms. So, we must find a delicate balance between protecting
society and preserving personal liberties.
Let’s look more closely at why this balance is needed.
First, consider the dangers of unrestricted free speech. One of the most serious risks is hate
speech, which targets people based on their race, religion, gender, or other traits. Hate
speech isn’t just offensive; it can cause psychological harm, reinforce harmful stereotypes,
and incite violence. For example, the rise of hate speech on social media has led to severe
consequences, like the hate crimes against Asian communities during the COVID-19
pandemic, fueled by online messages blaming them for the virus. When words go from
expression to acts of discrimination or violence, society pays the price.
Then there’s misinformation, which can spread like wildfire, especially on social media. False
information about critical issues—like health, safety, or politics—can lead to real-world
consequences. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation about vaccines
caused fear and confusion, making some people refuse vaccination, which affected public
health efforts globally. Here, speech isn’t just free expression; it becomes a public hazard
with damaging effects on society.
So, while it’s clear that limits on speech are necessary, there’s a danger in over-restriction
too. When speech is restricted too heavily, we risk losing voices and ideas essential to
democratic society. For instance, in some countries, criticism of government policies is
restricted. This was the case in Hong Kong, where anti-government protests were censored,
and many activists were silenced.
In democratic societies, the goal is to find a balance. Many countries create laws to limit
harmful speech, such as incitement to violence or defamation, while still protecting the right
to voice opinions. This balance allows society to uphold respect for individual freedoms and,
at the same time, maintain social order and safety.
But there are real challenges in defining the boundaries of free speech. What is offensive or
harmful can be subjective; one person’s hate speech might be another’s passionate opinion.
For example, the debate over "cancel culture" shows how subjective this boundary can
be—some view it as holding people accountable for offensive language, while others see it
as unfair censorship. And with the rise of social media, the question of who sets these limits
has become even more complicated. Social media platforms attempt to regulate speech, but
their policies are often criticized for either being too lenient or overly strict.
So, in conclusion, freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of democratic society. But, like
any freedom, it requires careful boundaries to prevent harm while allowing individuals to
express themselves. The balance between protecting society and safeguarding individual
freedom is challenging to find, yet essential.
