Same for the Nazi party and other real and active hate groups.
Are these parties legal ? Why ?
( sorry i am not American)
They are legal in the US because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution:
What is your first amendment ? the Freedom of speech thing ?
Does this really fall into such a catergory ?
As in … i believe in free speech - but isn’t this abusing those laws ?
I think in Germany overtly Nazi groups are proscribed. But in most democratic countries, you can’t ban a group unless it indulges in or actively encourages violence. So hate groups are legal. If they commit a crime, of course they get into trouble. But you can’t arrest people for their opinions.
Most democratic countries have the First Amendment, in some form, but they can all clamp down on groups that are a threat. Try excusing membership of Al Qaeda on 1st Amendment grounds in the US today.
I quoted it for you. Did you miss it? There is freedom of speech and of peaceful assembly.
sorry yes now i see it…
In America, you can’t make it illegal to be a member of a certain group. That would be a “status crime” (a crime which punishes people based on who they are rather than what they have done) and status crimes are unconstitutional.
Tolerating evil ideas is the price you pay for truely free political debate. Suppose the government says to the public, “You are free to discuss any idea, except for the Official Bad Ideas listed in this law.” Then the government has to:
-Create a law that specifies the Official Bad Ideas.
-Give a governmental agency the power to enforce the law against Official Bad Ideas.
-Enforce the law by bringing legal cases against the offenders.
In other words, the government has to set up a whole system that distinguishes Good Ideas from Official Bad Ideas. This puts the government in the business of telling people what they can and cannot think, no matter how noble the original intentions were. It is perfectly possible, for example, that the goverment could put ideas of its political opponents on the list of Official Bad Ideas.
In the USA this is not an issue, because the government simply has no authority to ban Bad Ideas. It’s up to the public to decide which ideas are good or bad by debating them, without fearing government prosecution for anything that is said during the debate. If you wish to discourage Bad Ideas, you do it by criticizing them, scorning them, mocking them.
It’s important to note that while you can freely discuss doing evil things in public debate in the US, actually killing people, destroying property, conspiring to deprive people of their civil rights, etc. is still illegal. Overt acts can be made illegal: thoughts cannot.
It’s a cliche, but it’s true: the First Amendment is an idea that is so radical, most people still don’t understand it 200 years after it was enacted.
Trader, you’re in Australia? Are “hate groups” legal in Australia?
Yes, we have hate groups. We don’t have a Bill of Rights, though. Some of the activities of hate groups which would fall under your Constitutional protections are illegal under our anti-discrimination and/ or stalking laws.
To make it clear for the foreign contingent (and perhaps some Americans), here’s where the line is:
You can discuss any idea all day and all night and nobody can stop you. This includes Nazism, genocide, homicide, and anything else you might care to name.
Legal: “I think them [insert group here] had better leave the rest of us alone!”
Still Legal: “Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if [insert group here] were all truncheoned to death with heavy maces?”
You can say pretty much what you want about anyone else, including elected officials, as long as what you say isn’t in the realm of defamation. Defamation is a somewhat nebulous legal concept, but it basically comes down to lying: If you told a lie about me and it damaged my reputation and/or my ability to earn a living, I could take action against you. Sometimes, but not always, the truth is an absolute defense against this, which means that in certain jurisidictions if the statement is true, no action is possible even if the statment did damage. Various regions have different laws on this.
Legal: “[Insert name here] is a buffoon and a simpleton.”
Possibly Legal if True: “[Insert name here] is addicted to anime porn.”
You cannot advocate committing a crime, and you cannot help arrange the commission of a crime. What excatly those concepts mean in real life is somewhat shaky, but it basically comes down to saying ‘You can’t tell people to go out and do bad things.’
Illegal: “Jim, it’s up to you to take a heavy mace and truncheon all [Insert group here] to death.”
Illegal: “I have the heavy maces and ski masks right here. Come right over!”
All of this is fundamentally under the heading of Free Speech, as covered in the US under the First Amendment, modified by various laws. Exactly how far the First Amendment goes is a matter of some debate and always will be, with extremes on both sides.
I thought truth was always an absolute defense. Not that I don’t believe you, I’m just curious: do you have a cite? I’d like to see the details of a case like that.
The truth is always an absolute defense against defamation actions in the United States. One of the things necessary to prove defamation is that the statement is false. However, there are also torts like “invasion of privacy” in which the truth of the statement is not a defense.
As always IANAL.
The standard is more or less ‘reckless disregard’. You can’t sue for libel if the statement is merely false. You must prove that the person who ran the statment didn’t care whether or not it was true, and ran it with malice. That was decided in Sullivan, and it applies to people ‘in the public eye’: Not necessarily famous, but known in a certain community. IOW, the people most likely to sue for libel must meet the fairly high Sullivan burden.
Most little people must only prove negligence: That the person who made the statments didn’t check up enough to determine the veracity of the statements.
Remember: “Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea.” – SCotUS, 1974. Therefore, the statments must be factually false, not merely in bad taste or malicious. So when The Painfully Rev. Jerry Falwell sued a magazine for running a satire under libel laws, the Supremes struck down the lower court decision for the plaintiff (Falwell), saying that satire, no matter how scathing, cannot meet the libel burden.
But the case history is long, varied, and complex. Here is a partial history, cached by Google.
I remember something about this in my American History class (which was quite a while ago). A newspaper (in New York, IIRC) printed inflamatory statements about a local politician. The politician claimed libel and sued. The court found that the statements mede by the paper were true, so the politician lost his case.
Ah – here it is. The trial of Peter Zenger.
Membership in certain proscribed groups can, I think, be proscribed (or at least Congress and the Executive Branch think it can – I don’t think the Supreme Court has analyzed the below provisions under the First Amendment).
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/91mcrm.htm
Note that the DOJ recognizes the controversial nature of classifying “personnel” as “material support,” and attempts to draw a line between mere advocacy of a group’s aims, which they concede is definitely protected under the 1st Amdt., and “working under the direction or control of the [foreign terrorist] organization” (which arguably requires a bit more than mere passive membership (though I would imagine that a defense of “I was just an inactive member, and never worked under anyone’s direction or control” might be met by a conspiracy or attempt charge – you meant to work under the mastermind’s control eventually, but just never got around to receiving your mission before being caught).
All of this of course applies only in the limited context of foreign-controlled terror groups, as designated, and is a (one would hope minor) exception to the rule that membership in an advocacy organization, without any further criminal activity, is not to be penalized.
There is even an organization whose purpose is to defend such groups as the KKK and Nazi Party. It is called the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). Sometimes they are vilified more than the groups and/or causes they fight for, which does not phase them.
Just to clarify, their purpose is to defend encroachment upon all civil liberties, not just freedom of speech, and not just those of hate groups. The ACLU defends everyone, and no, it does not faze them. (sorry to nitpick)
No, their purpose is to defend enroachement of certain civil liberties but not others, as they state quite clearly on their webpage. If they changed their stance on that one particular issue (even to a ‘no comment’ position), I’d be a card-carrying member in a heartbeat.
I think that truth is a defense against lible, not defamation. I believe a defamation claim can be sustained even if the statement is true. Perhaps someone can distinguish lible from defamation?