Is/Should being a Nazi in the U.S. be illegal?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by skywalker


I would wait. IF they have the support of the majority of the citizens, then they deserve to be in power! I personally would vote against them (duh) but I can't say they don't have the right to hold their views just because I don't like them! It creates a paradox; why can't they just say, well, we're in the minority, but we don't like your views, so you shouldn't be in power?! EACH VIEWPOINT IS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS EQUALLY VALID.

You shouldn't be arguing for them to be banned, you should be arguing against them in order to convince others they are wrong! (obviously, this isn't necessary now, but you get the point)



Well, if they are using "dubious" (by which I assume you mean illegal) means to get into power, then we arrest them, because they are breaking the law.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Exactly... shutting it up just creates a MASSIVE underground movement. Look at neo-Nazis in Germany.

Imran, today´s NeoNazi parties are legal in Germany. As said, the last attempt to declare one of them illegal failed, because of the same things people mentioned here - it wasn´t possible to prove that the crimes done by several members were more than crimes by several members.

I get the impression that a lot of people here think we forbid parties on a daily basis, and all their members have to suffer in jail then. But that is really not what happens here.

However, I still support the option to declare a certain party illegal if it acts just as a criminal organization.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Azazel

The fact that they can't means they don't.

any proof for that?

His proof is anecdotal. Boddie has taken literally hundreds of gay men up his poop shoot, yet not one of them has ever been able to impregnate him.

[Zylka]

What's going on here

[BeBMan]

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think I'll play Devil's advocate.

Frankly I reckon that any organisation that exists through brainwashing should be proscribed. Example - David Koresh and his mates. I don't see the Nazis being any different.

By the time you and your committee finish working up an acceptable definition of brain-washing humans will have already evolved to the point that other issues will be on our minds.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


Now there's someone with his head screwed on the right way.

Let me ask the Hitler-lovers () this: If the Nazi Party, given what you know about them and their political program, became popular in the country you lived in and began to establish themselves as a political power by legitimate means, what would you do?

Would you leave them be and wait until they gained power and then attempted to overturn all the civil rights you wanted to protect, or would you suppress them, which would be bad for them, but good for all the people who would avoid the evil things they planned on doing?

Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you?

One instance does not a statistically valid sample make. I would obey the law and fight within it, unless or until my opponent strayed from that line, in which case all bets are off.

[kolpo]

"One instance does not a statistically valid sample make. I would obey the law and fight within it, unless or until my opponent strayed from that line, in which case all bets are off."

But what if they first made things like genocide legal(let's assume they control 2/3 of the states and can change the constitution at will) before they did them.

What if they made you protesting against them illegal on a legal way: based on your rethoric should you then stop protesting because you said you will not violate the law until they do and they didn't, they just changed it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nazis are all fine and well, a great example.

What about holocaust deniers? There's a fellow here in Canada, Ernst Zundel who is barred from speaking, although I don't believe he's advocated violence against the Jews.

We are fortunate enough to have hate crimes legislation to protect us from hate mongers and the theories they peddle.

Agathon:
You'd make a good Devil's advocate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by obiwan18
What about holocaust deniers?

I thought they all were holocaust deniers.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

I would wait. IF they have the support of the majority of the citizens, then they deserve to be in power!

So you'd overturn democracy in its own name? Even if the Nazis had the support of the majority of citizens I still think it would be justifiable to suppress them. My reason is that a democracy isn't "anything goes" but a political form that has definite limits. If we believe in the preservation of democracy more than we believe in this or that temporary government then suppressing the Nazis is the rational thing to do.

You can't tell me that you care about freedom of speech if you think that it is OK to allow a course of action that leads to more free speech violations (by the Nazis) than a course of action that requires less (you suppressing them).

I personally would vote against them (duh) but I can't say they don't have the right to hold their views just because I don't like them! It creates a paradox; why can't they just say, well, we're in the minority, but we don't like your views, so you shouldn't be in power?! EACH VIEWPOINT IS SUBJECTIVE, AND THUS EQUALLY VALID.

In fact, if each moral viewpoint is subjective and has no binding claim on others, then the purported "right" for these people to hold their own views is also subjective and therefore a figment of your imagination. So if you are a subjectivist you cannot find an objectively binding reason why I shouldn't shoot the Nazis.

You shouldn't be arguing for them to be banned, you should be arguing against them in order to convince others they are wrong! (obviously, this isn't necessary now, but you get the point)

That's a fair comment. However, my example only holds when things have got out of hand and there is a realistic prospect of them getting in whatever arguments people put forward.

[Imran Siddiqui]

re: The Nazis. Remember, the real trouble started when Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. And furthermore, what kind of sentance is 6 months for treason? What I would have done is remain more vigilant and more strongly campaign against the Nazis. Just because they were/are potentially dangerous, doesn't mean we should outlaw their speech (their violence is another matter). This argument was used in the 1950s actually by those wanting to supress the Communists. They argued that Communists were dangerous and would destroy the American way of life if they came in power, and so were brually supressed. Looking back, that was a big mistake, IMO.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
re: The Nazis. Remember, the real trouble started when Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor. And furthermore, what kind of sentance is 6 months for treason? What I would have done is remain more vigilant and more strongly campaign against the Nazis. Just because they were/are potentially dangerous, doesn't mean we should outlaw their speech (their violence is another matter). This argument was used in the 1950s actually by those wanting to supress the Communists. They argued that Communists were dangerous and would destroy the American way of life if they came in power, and so were brually supressed. Looking back, that was a big mistake, IMO.

Hindsight is 20/20 - but it is also the case that suppressing the Nazi party in Germany would have been a good thing. So your point is...?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon
Presumably, this dilemma once confronted the German authorities. I think they made the wrong choice, don't you?

I think it is not a question of right or wrong, because it can only be seen in its historic context. I still think it was "right" for Germany to create a rule that allows certain actions against extreme political organizations, esp. shortly after WWII, when the democratic process was just in the beginning. But that doesn´t mean it must be the right thing to do for other countries.

For a cheap shot, I could blame it all on the Allies, who started with declaring Hitler´s NSDAP a criminal organization in Nuremberg 45. But of course it wouldn´t be fair. One of the core points of the new (West-) German constitution after WWII was to make sure that a system like that of Hitler cannot come back, because the experience of that system (and its final breakdown/defeat) changed Germany in every possible way. This point became in fact the most important idea in the entire German society. So the idea to limit extreme political forces even by declaring a certain party illegal isn´t something that is forced upon us by an evil authority, it has developed within our society as a reaction of a special situation, and it is widely accepted. I would think of it as a self-limitation of the society.

Maybe in the future this rule it isn´t needed anymore, perhaps then it will be abandoned, which would be certainly good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is also the case that suppressing the Nazi party in Germany would have been a good thing. So your point is...?

My point is that banning parties we don't like is not a good thing. We should be vigilante against them, but they can say what they want to say.