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

[Ben Kenobi]

Then democracy will be destroyed. You can't defend the destruction of democracy on democratic grounds - it's irrational and self contradictory to do so.

What's the point of having a democracy if we force everyone to agree? Is such a state still a liberal democracy? I would argue that Canada has already crossed the bright line between a democratic and a non-democratic state by going down the road of criminalising hate speech.

Where do we draw the line between inciting violence and between expressing an opinion? Look at Martin Luther King. His opinions incited blacks to riot, hence triggering complaints by those in power.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by obiwan18
What's the point of having a democracy if we force everyone to agree? Is such a state still a liberal democracy? I would argue that Canada has already crossed the bright line between a democratic and a non-democratic state by going down the road of criminalising hate speech.

Democracies force all to agree, eg. not to murder other people. Without such an agreement, democracy can´t work. Is this still undemocratic? Even if the majority agrees here, there may be still a minority that doesn´t. Isn´t a murder just acting according to his beliefs then? Don´t know, it seems not logic to believe one can murder anotherone, but claiming the right not to be murdered (which I assume murderers do for themselves). However, in any case we lock them up - of course.

But how can a society then decide when it is justified to take action against people and when not? OK, we have constitutions and laws - but on what do we base then their contents? How do we define which actions are tolerable and which not? Which rights are granted and which not?

For example, some people think there should be a right to be employed. We don´t grant that right - a lack of freedom? How can we deny that right? Simply because of what the majority sees as right? Then why we protect also rights for minorities?

Where do we draw the line between inciting violence and between expressing an opinion?

If I only knew that....

[Ben Kenobi]

How do we define which actions are tolerable and which not?

Now let me be clear, I'm not defending those who commit hateful acts, just trying to figure out what to do about what they say. This would include your example of murderers. We should punish the deed, but should we punish the word?

A direct threat, such as, "We will do so and so to you if you do this," should be restricted. What about something along the lines that the holocaust never happened? What do we say then?

Part of the problem with constituting hate laws is who gets to decide what is hateful speech and what is not. Oftentimes, this becomes synonymous with PC, in that you should not express an opinion if people may take offense.

This is the problem that I see in Canada right now, that by taking the step to protect people from hate, we also stifle legitimate voices trying to change the status quo.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now let me be clear, I'm not defending those who commit hateful acts, just trying to figure out what to do about what they say. This would include your example of murderers. We should punish the deed, but should we punish the word?

No, not in my opinion (as long it isn´t directly responsible for violence, which is indeed a difficult thing to decide). And I´d never accuse you of defending hateful acts
But I have the very same problem like you - just from the opposite direction. Therefore I try to find out if/when/where it is acceptable in a free society to have certain restrictions.

A direct threat, such as, "We will do so and so to you if you do this," should be restricted. What about something along the lines that the holocaust never happened? What do we say then?

Exactly my problem

Part of the problem with constituting hate laws is who gets to decide what is hateful speech and what is not. Oftentimes, this becomes synonymous with PC, in that you should not express an opinion if people may take offense.

This is the problem that I see in Canada right now, that by taking the step to protect people from hate, we also stifle legitimate voices trying to change the status quo.

As said, I see the same problems. However, while I agree is has disadvantages to limit rights, I also think it has disadvantages to do it not in certain cases.

For instance if one doesn´t act against those who incite violence, and this violence causes victims, people can argue that it wasn´t done enough to prevent this. And at a certain scale of violence you can´t speak of a free society anymore. But then we are again at our dilemma with the definition of incitement. Even if I share this dilemma with you, I think such restrictions can be done.

The other question you mentioned (if there should be a protection from hatespeech) is hard for me to decide too. Here the definition becomes even more difficult. What kind of hate should be restricted, and why? Doesn´t any restriction here lead to absurd situations - eg. if we restrict something like "I hate Jews!" why not restrict the line "I hate my neighbour!" too?

I´m not sure (would have to look it up), but I think it isn´t allowed in Germany to deny eg. the Holocaust. From the arguments in this thread, I would tend to the position that it is not wise to restrict something like this, esp. not when you have already a stable democracy. However when you don´t restrict it, I can see problems too. Let´s say you have a history teacher who teaches over years in his classes that the Holocaust was just a lie - would that be acceptable? If not, on what base should we prevent that something like this happens, if it can´t be restricted?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let´s say you have a history teacher who teaches over years in his classes that the Holocaust was just a lie - would that be acceptable? If not, on what base should we prevent that something like this happens, if it can´t be restricted?

That's easy . Fire the teacher for not teaching the required curriculum. To have a free speech right, doesn't mean your employer has to deal with it while you are on the job.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's easy . Fire the teacher for not teaching the required curriculum. To have a free speech right, doesn't mean your employer has to deal with it while you are on the job.

But wouldn´t the right to have free speech overrule the right of the employer to make his own rules at work? Isn´t that just another form of restriction of the right to free speech? Sure, it is not a general restriction, since the teacher is allowed to say what he wants outside of his job. But when he does it at work he comes in trouble for expressing his belief. If the right to free speech is a basic right, how can employers decide that it cannot be exercised at work too?

Or is then the justification that he wasn´t fired for expressing his belief (contrary to the belief of his employer) and exercising a basic right, but for not doing his job as it should be (following the curriculum)?

I´m really not trolling here - I just try to understand how the "hierarchy" of several rights (if one can say that) works in the US.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Let´s say you have a history teacher who teaches over years in his classes that the Holocaust was just a lie - would that be acceptable? If not, on what base should we prevent that something like this happens, if it can´t be restricted?

That's easy . Fire the teacher for not teaching the required curriculum. To have a free speech right, doesn't mean your employer has to deal with it while you are on the job.

Hope they don't have tenure, or that might be tough. I don't think there are any specifics in the law that allow you to fire a tenured teacher for this. You don't have to just teach the required curriculum. After you have taught the standards the rest is up to you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But wouldn´t the right to have free speech overrule the right of the employer to make his own rules at work?

No. The employer can fire you if you make an outrageous comment. Remember the right to free speech is a right AGAINST the government! The government cannot make any law denying you free speech! That doesn't mean that businesses have to follow that. In the case of a public school, firing someone for an outrageous statement would not be governmental law making.... of course the tenure thing comes into play, grumble.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Banning Nazism is simply an emotional response - a few idiots joining a fringe lunatic party aren't gonna hurt anyone, and if they DO hurt someone, you arrest the specific people responsible.

That's what they said in Germany. Except those idiots eventually managed to come to power by luck or fate.

[GePap]

I think advocating violence is grounds for not being included: democracy works through compromise, through internal debate and final agreement. To advocate violence at all is to call for and end to the system of democracy, for once violence become an acceptable tool then you undrmine democracy, and why should dmeocracy allow for its won destruction?

The fact is that Nazi ideology was always heavily muddled,a nd most modern parties that call themselves "Nazi" use the name for the mystique, but I don;t think they have the ideological strenght of the originals (which was not rgeat to begin with).

[Al B. Sure!]

DarthVeda:

or by the vote...

[BeBMan]

What vote? Hitler wasn´t elected. By the time he was appointed, his party had only ca. one third of the seats in the Reichstag. Even if he had better results before (best I think in 1932), his party never won a majority.

[Ramo]

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

What could be the case even with freedom of speech granted? The gov't/media/etc. scaremongering people into changing the "societal consensus" into something bad? Well, yes, that's the point. Freedom of speech is designed to prevent that from undermining the legality of unpopular political opinions.

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.

That's not an appropriate analogy. Freedom of speech is specifically designed to prevent the state from censoring unpopular political opinons. That's the very point of freedom of speech. If the legality of speech is tied to the societal consensus over legitimate political opinions, it is not truly free.

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)

Yes, and I don't want to repeat the stupidities of the past.

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.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "legally," but yes 100 years ago, industrialists could kill strikers with impunity in the US, and in most other places.

Anyways, so you're saying that a party demanding and practicing violence outside any existing law should be prohibited - unless you say otherwise? Very interesting position you have there. So what will us plebes do if you're not around to pronounce a state "a system of terror?"

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by BeBro
What vote? Hitler wasn´t elected. By the time he was appointed, his party had only ca. one third of the seats in the Reichstag. Even if he had better results before (best I think in 1932), his party never won a majority.

i saw a tv movie on hitler's rise to power.

god damned genius.

looks like bush took a few tips

[Panag]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


i saw a tv movie on hitler's rise to power.

god damned genius.

looks like bush took a few tips

hi ,

that tv movie must have been a bunch of crap then , .....

cause a man who needed constant medications and who could not get a certain body part to work , not to mention how crappie his moves on the maps where , .......

nah , he never was a genius , .....

have a nice day