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

[Gangerolf]

of course not.

silly question

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boddington's
The fact that they can't means they don't.

Oh, Boddsies.... threadjack over

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The Nazi party should be legal. The success of fringe parties are a manifestation of a problem in society. Banning them will not make that problem go away, and will not change people's minds.

[Inverse Icarus]

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.

I Hate Hate Haters.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by JohnT
"Nazism shouldn't be banned, but commiting illegal acts in its name SHOULD."

Anybody else find this unintentionally funny as well as slightly confusing?

Are you saying that Nazis should have harsher jail sentences for committing the same crimes that non-Nazis commit? Or are you adding an additional charge, the crime of committing crimes in the name of Nazism, on top of the already illegal acts?

No, I did not mean that. It was poorly worded. I just meant that it being Nazism (and by extension, a perverse form of "political expression") should not exempt it from the law.

[Boris Godunov]

The only instance in which I can see banning a political/social organization is if said organization advocates violence against others as a part of its platform/doctrine.

Now as to the degree with which the violence is explicit or implicit...that's a thornier question. We could err on the side of caution and only ban groups with explicit calls for violence, but that will let some organizations get away with implicitly inciting violence against despised people/groups. I think that's something with which to be concerned.

And I'd be happy to introduce Bodds to several gay men and women I know who have children. Ok, maybe not happy, as I'd not want to inflict him on decent folk.

[Kuciwalker]

Even if it "advocates" violence or some other illegal act, you should not ban it, because they are using their freedom of expression to try and change the law. We may find it offensive, but they have an equally valid viewpoint. However, INCITING (intentionally and actively, which is very difficult to prove) illegal acts is and should be illegal. Look at it this way: it was not illegal before the civil war (or after ) to ADVOCATE slave revolts, etc. However, it was, and rightly so, illegal to INCITE them, not because slavery was morally acceptible (thought to some it was), but because they had not managed to make it legal yet! The point of the distinction (which has actually been made many times in US courts) is to protect a peaceful system by which people can try and change laws. Otherwise, ANY advocacy of changing a law would be illegal.

[Space05us]

Okay I have a question. Being a nazi has been made ilegal, now what?
Do you put them in jail?
Do you restrict thier political freedoms?
Do you refuse them public service?

And if you do do any of these things how are you advocating a free society? We might as well go back to constitutional monarchy, as all you are doing is opressing people and breeding anger and hatred. They will tell you to take your political freedoms and your public services and shove it. The next thing you know they will be lashing out at society as a whole.

How is ilegalizing being a member of a political party, or holding certain political beliefs, going to help anything? Sure you can run through the streets jumping with joy and glee then the next minutue you know police officers and government officials are being harassed and killed. Either that or people are being ripped from thier homes and thrown in jail in order to prevent them from lashing out.

edit: The same thing would happen as what happend to black people not to long ago, when thier constitutional right were restricted.

[kolpo]

So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"


They do not violate any law,do not commit violence, so based on your rethoric should it be allowed in the US.

Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will at the moment be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say it would be allowed, I said it should be allowed.

Anyway, I bet it would win if they weren't inciting any of those things, just advocating them (and proved they weren't a terrorist front), as the courts tend to have a very long-term view of things.

[Space05us]

So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"


They do no violete any law,do not commit violence, so based on your retoric should it be allowed in the US.

Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.

If they did not break the law in any way then fine, let them have thier political party. They shouldnt expect much sympathy when thier houses get burned down and thier families are murdered, but of they want to have thier political party I say let them have it.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by kolpo
So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"

They do not violate any law,do not commit violence, so based on your rethoric should it be allowed in the US.

Yes. Go Terrorism party.
I would think these guys were lower than dirt, but they still have rights just like I do even if they are sh*theads.

Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will at the moment be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.

And I say that's a pile of manure. As long as the party did not give "material aid" to terrorists or incite terrorism itself, it's legal.

[Jaguar]

I don't mind infringements upon the rights of nazis. However, I do hate David Floyd whining about civil liberties. So I will side with him.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
and nah... considering that when there's a KKK rally, there's three people in hoods and hundreds of protestors... there's no need to have them be illegal... if anything, their cause is harmed by it being legal as they are ridiculed so much...

The federal govt should have declared war on the KKK long ago and crushed them. The KKK killed and terrorised a lot of people. None of it had to occur.

The Nazis should be outlawed too. Anyone who preaches hate should be.

[Vandal-1]

Fasicm is allowed evidently,but they don't call themselves Nazis. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet.
have a nice day.