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

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boddington's




You've been reading too many of Boris' posts.

no, it's much more simple than that. Being homosexual doesn't cause your sperm to die off. They might not desire the act of heterosexual sex, but they are still physically capable of doing it.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by panag
since when its illegal to being a nazi , since the day they starting killing people

Killing is illegal; expressing views that do not directly lead to violence is not. Why should they be an illegal group just because you don't like them?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Killing is illegal; expressing views that do not directly lead to violence is not. Why should they be an illegal group just because you don't like them?

The views of the Nazis in Germany 33 -45 lead directly to violence, it was an integral part of their ideology. That is in fact the core of the problem.

[loinburger]

The views of the Bolsheviks led to violence, and the views of the SR's led to violence, but that's no excuse to start locking up socialists and anarchists.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by BeBro
The views of the Nazis in Germany 33 -45 lead directly to violence, it was an integral part of their ideology. That is in fact the core of the problem.

A better word would have been "immediately." Thus, it's ok to say that I hate so-and-so people, but if this leads to a riot or lynching shortly after my speech is not protected. By definition, a political movement spanning 12 years cannot lead to immediate violence. The speech must be handled on a case by case basis, not by banning an entire party.

[BeBMan]

Loin: If they´d still practice it?

I mean, the Nazi Party committed a lot of crimes against political enemies even before 1933. And everybody could know what Hitler had in mind, he wrote in "Mein Kampf".

So when there is a party today which does the same, why should we do nothing against it?

BTW, as said earlier declaring a party illegal doesn´t lead neccessarily to prison for all members.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
The speech must be handled on a case by case basis, not by banning an entire party.

I disagree. I a party adopts certain views as a whole, it can be treated as a whole. Still, concrete cases of violence would be treated individually here.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by BeBro
I disagree. I a party adopts certain views as a whole, it can be treated as a whole. Still, concrete cases of violence would be treated individually here.

This flies in the face of the idea that we should prosecute people for crimes. Why on earth should we prosecute people for simple beliefs at all? A party that preaches hatred (which is different from preaching violence) should not be outlawed simply because it is not wrong to hate.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Why on earth should we prosecute people for simple beliefs at all? A party that preaches hatred (which is different from preaching violence) should not be outlawed simply because it is not wrong to hate.

I´d say when you declare a party illegal, you prosecute this party as a political construct, not its members.

Therefore I said concrete cases would be still here handled individually.

What is the difference between a party which openly preaches and practises violence, and a terrorist org.?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by BeBro
I mean, the Nazi Party committed a lot of crimes against political enemies even before 1933. And everybody could know what Hitler had in mind, he wrote in "Mein Kampf".

I see these as being two different entirely cases, not as two analogous justifications -- violence is (and ought to be) illegal, but there isn't (and ought not to be) a law against simply hating somebody. Everybody (in the US, at any rate) knows that the KKK hates blacks and jews and catholics etc., but they're not cracked down upon because they don't (as a "party") practice violence against blacks and jews etc. -- they're (rightfully) allowed to have their impotent little rallies. The situation was different 100+ years ago (when the KKK was essentially a terrorist organization), and as a result the group was outlawed at that time.

Practicing political violence is not analogous to writing a hate manual.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by BeBro
I´d say when you declare a party illegal, you prosecute this party as a political construct, not its members.

Even a party should still be prosecuted for acts and not beliefs. I tolerate a Nazi party preaching whatever the hell it wants until it causes violence, and that is the time to crack down.

What is the difference between a party which openly preaches and practises violence, and a terrorist org.?

Whoa, practices violence? Obviously, parties which practice violence do not have protected speech, as it qualifies as incitement. As far as I am aware, however, a nazi party does not by definition practice violence.

[Cyclotron]

loinburger

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by loinburger

I see these as being two different entirely cases, not as two analogous justifications -- violence is (and ought to be) illegal, but there isn't (and ought not to be) a law against simply hating somebody. Everybody (in the US, at any rate) knows that the KKK hates blacks and jews and catholics etc., but they're not cracked down upon because they don't (as a "party") practice violence against blacks and jews etc. -- they're (rightfully) allowed to have their impotent little rallies. The situation was different 100+ years ago (when the KKK was essentially a terrorist organization), and as a result the group was outlawed at that time.

Practicing political violence is not analogous to writing a hate manual.

Yes, no problem with that - I don´t support any automatism in the sense of: expressing hate > gets declared illegal.

We have enough legal "hate" parties here too, there are a several neonazi parties which aren´t illegal here, and which advocate a lot of nonsense. However, the most recent case where a German party run in danger to get declared illegal developed after their members did a lot of violence. But even this wasn´t enough to declare them illegal - in the end the cons were considered more heavier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Once again, after reading all these responses, of course not!

Just because they preach against the state and preach hatred is not justification to make any party illegal in any way shape or form. First, it'll be the Nazis, then the Communists, then the Anarchists, and every party that does say they are 'true-blue' American.

[Cyclotron]

The question that must be asked is whether the violence was just conducted by a few members or whether the party as a whole incited them to violence through direct encouraging. If the party is responsible for the violence, there is a problem with the party; if the people did it because of what they believe (and that happens to be the party's belief as well), there is not.