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

[Ramo]

But this reflects a certain consensus in society. Part of that consensus is that (most) people want certain rights, but they also agree to certain reactions in case of violations against those rights. That is not only a party thing.

Which brings me to my original point. Freedom of speech means the ability to argue against "societal consensus." If you don't have that, you don't have freedom of speech. It seems to me awfully dangerous to have political participation to be governed by conformity. What happens if the state/media/etc. scare-mongers people into changing the "societal consensus" to something worse?

Also, the system of law is not controlled by certain parties. So if a party says "murderers should be imprisoned" you still have a fair trial in each individual case, where guilt has to be proven, independantly from political parties.

So if a party says "Jews should be executed," it's ok as long as the party says that the claim should be proven indepdently from political parties?

That is not the same as demanding and practising violence outside any existing law against others.

Turn the clock, say, a century ago, and the state didn't go after industrialists who slaughtered strikers. Does it mean that if someone says that violent actions should be taken against these industrialists, he should be imprisoned?

No. My first post here said that it is done only in exceptional cases (to be more specific just once in Germany after WWII) because it is extremely difficult according to our law. And it is that difficult because we are aware that it is always somehow problematic to limit rights (not to mention the practical problems which UberKruX metioned above).
There is no automatism to declare all authoritarian parties illegal. But it is an option, if the particular party becomes a serious thread to the current consensus of the society. This derives from our special historic experience (esp. the end of the Weimar republic), and this is what I support

What constitues "exceptional cases," exactly?

[Shi Huangdi]

Ramo

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ramo

Being an anarchist, Ramo knows full well that capricious assaults of free speech can easily be turned against him.

[JCG]

Originally posted by loinburger

Your rolleyes have convinced me. I propose that we outlaw any and all opinions that JCG finds distasteful.

Oh really? Thank you very much.
You'd have to outlaw Affirmative Action (as it exists today) then too, while you're at it.



The problem with Nazism isn't that it's a different opinion and all that, but that it has proven itself to be harmful to humanity, clearly promoting and executing violence, actions which the majority of the world finds reprehensible, AFAIK.

Would you let parties that openly seek to discriminate, persecute and murder African-Americans as part of their ideology, for example, exist and operate just because that constitutes "freedom of speech"?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ramo
Which brings me to my original point. Freedom of speech means the ability to argue against "societal consensus." If you don't have that, you don't have freedom of speech. It seems to me awfully dangerous to have political participation to be governed by conformity. What happens if the state/media/etc. scare-mongers people into changing the "societal consensus" to something worse?

That can be the case even with freedom of speech granted.

I could also say "If you don´t have full freedom (to do anything you want, even kill others) you don´t have freedom at all" - but that seems nonsense to me

Because if you don´t want that others violate your rights you have to accept limits for yourself. The rest is a question of the definition of those limits.

So if a party says "Jews should be executed," it's ok as long as the party says that the claim should be proven indepdently from political parties?

Such a claim is proven independantly from political parties, because here only our highest court can declare a party illegal. The government has to make its case, why a particular party should be illegal, then the court decides. Just in recent years it was planned to declare the NPD, a Neonazi party, illegal (after a series of crimes done by party members), however, today everyone is quite sure that the court would never accept what is presented as proof so far, therefore the government renounced those plans.

If there would be a party today who would officially say "Jews should be executed" I have no doubt the court would declare this party illegal, because this is totally against our constitution.

Turn the clock, say, a century ago, and the state didn't go after industrialists who slaughtered strikers. Does it mean that if someone says that violent actions should be taken against these industrialists, he should be imprisoned?

Hm, in Germany today you can legally strike, and no industrialist can hinder you without breaking the law. I´m not responsible for stupidities of the past, esp. when in Germany the real democratic process began only after WWII (with the short intermezzzo of Weimar - but they could strike there too)

If your example says the industrialists could legally slaughter strikers, I would say this is a system of terror, and then you can resist. Edit: Oh, and of course one can always act in self-defense. That doesn´t mean however, that you should lynch those industrialists if there are other ways.

What constitues "exceptional cases," exactly?

The government must prove that the specific party is acting "openly and aggressively" against our constitution (includes violence from the party as part of its official program and/or practic "work").

[David Floyd]

That can be the case even with freedom of speech granted.

This is a very interesting - disturbing - outlook. Freedom of speech is not something that can be granted, but only taken away. This is not a "natural rights" argument so much as it is common sense - you are born with the ability to speak, or at least learn how to speak, and speech is harmful to no one. It costs nothing except your own energy to speak, and does not force anyone else to do anything. It is inherent to yourself - the government cannot legitimately have a claim on your voice. Therefore, it seems to be clear that the freedom of speech - literally, the freedom to speak - is something inherent and natural. If this is the case, how could this freedom be "granted" by the government? That is a pretty big usurpation of power, wouldn't you think?

No, common sense tells us that freedom of speech - or, at least, the ability to freely speak unhindered - is only something that can be denied, not granted.

[David Floyd]

could also say "If you don´t have full freedom (to do anything you want, even kill others) you don´t have freedom at all" - but that seems nonsense to me

Of course it seems like nonsense - that's exactly what it is. Freedom is the lack of coercion. If you are exercising coercion, you are not exercising freedom.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Freedom is the lack of coercion.

Sure. You don´t have full freedom, because you must eat

[David Floyd]

Sure. You don´t have full freedom, because you must eat

Freedom and rights in the context in which we are discussing them apply only to interactions between humans. Being naturally forced to eat, or being mauled by a bear, have nothing to do with rights violations.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Freedom and rights in the context in which we are discussing them apply only to interactions between humans. Being naturally forced to eat, or being mauled by a bear, have nothing to do with rights violations.

And exactly interactions between humans limit freedom. That is a form of coercion. So freedom in a society includes coercion.

[SlowwHand]

No, now, wait a second. Coercion has to be ok.
It's a personal liberty of the coercior. (sp?)

[Cruddy]

Difficult one to answer - everybody seems to know what a nazi party is, but there aren't any definitions given.

Should a party be banned for preaching hatred? Yes, I think so. The trouble with this definition is that many political parties "hate" different things.

For instance, I find people like the Anti-Nazi League just as hateful as the ideas they are opposed to.

There's a couple of lessosn here. Listen what people are for, as well as what they are against. And don't take freedom of speech to cover preaching genocide.

Because if it did, we'd have to let individuals like Abu Hamza back into the pulpit.

[David Floyd]

And exactly interactions between humans limit freedom. That is a form of coercion. So freedom in a ociety includes coercion.

But you're not following. When you are coercing another - say, killing or robbing them - you are NOT exercising freedom. Coercion and freedom are mutually exclusive. So when society says you can't kill someone else, your freedom is not being limited, because coercion is never freedom.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by David Floyd
When you are coercing another - say, killing or robbing them - you are NOT exercising freedom.

That´s your opinion - why not? People could demand the freedom to exercise coercion. People could just say I´m not free when I can´t coerce....

Coercion and freedom are mutually exclusive.

Why?

[Berzerker]

Sure. You don´t have full freedom, because you must eat

You can starve yourself.

So when society says you can't kill someone else, your freedom is not being limited, because coercion is never freedom.

But "society" does use coercion to stop murder, true? While this coercion is not used to suppress freedom since murder falls outside the definition of freedom, coercion still exists in a free society. I guess the problem is how we view "coercion", I consider it more a compulsion of sorts used on non-conformists who aren't hurting or threatening others, i.e., violating the non-conformists' free will. But it can be more broadly seen to include any use of force, threatened or not, even on would be murderers.

Coerce - to persuade someone forcefully to do something which they are unwilling to do. (Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)