It’s apparently not all that far-fetched for an American politician to meet with people like this, that is, if you’re Ron Paul (who has also drawn support (financial and otherwise) from American Nazi Party member (and Stormfront founder) Don Black.
I don’t think Ron Paul would be dumb enough at this juncture to arrange a meeting with this new ANP lobbyist, but his history suggests that he’d willingly accept campaign donations from him.
Around here the “poor, pimply” teens show their cool by vandalizing Jewish headstones or painting swastikas on some of the local synagogues, but as long as it’s just young, alienated loser kids trying to act tough, I guess it’s all good…
I have no doubt that’s a lot of them, but there have to be a few grownups, too. The key point for me is that if the Nazis are lobbying the government, then by definition they’re not scary. When they start shooting people and starting putsches, that’s something to be scared of.
I hear Singapore has an excellent way of dealing with vandals…
There most certainly is a clause for types of speech that can be banned or restricted. Do I really have to tell you about your ability to shout “Fire!” in a theater? Let’s both agree not to make any easily dismissed claims please.
Like TonySinclair said, there are a great deal of restrictions on religions. You can join any one you want, but religions are not free to do anything they want. I would see the Nazi party as the same thing, only take it one step further and ban them outright. If there were a religion that actively practices human sacrifices, I can imagine that the government would ban it or make it conform to societal laws to the point where the religion itself is nothing like its core.
I think what Germany is doing is a great job in preventing the historical Nazi party from gaining any kind of momentum again. I would like to see their anti-Nazi laws here
I think the Nazis are worse. They’ve had a proven track record of taking over a government. Their history, to me, is more dangerous than the KKK. Sure, if the KKK makes it to those levels again, I’d ban them too, fuck them
Yes, the government can exercise prior restraint on the Nazi’s speech if it is likely to result in imminent lawless action. Perhaps you can see where a Nazi lobbyist (even if his belief is sincere) falls very far short of that standard.
I suspect it wouldn’t.
Certainly most German soldiers were conscripts, as were most of the armies among the Allies. But the Nazi party itself was largely composed of educated government and business insiders. It is a misconception to label all German troops as Nazis. Most of them were ordinary soldiers.
I would like to point out that the afore mentioned rallies Skokie were defended in court(the city tried to stop them) by Jewish lawyers for the ACLU. Free speech is just that, you are free to make an ass of yourself and we are free to call you on it.
Maybe not, but the claim that there is no exception for abridging free speech by RealityChuck is provably false. People like to say that as a matter-of-fact standard argument for all kinds of proposed free speech restrictions, I think, are simply using rote memory recall of a standardized argument without actually thinking of the logic behind it. I hate those rote arguments, can’t stand them. I don’t ever want to hear the lie that you can’t restrict freedom because you can, and for good reason. I happen to think not giving Nazi’s a party is a good reason
It is, yes. It’s also true this guy does not come anywhere close to fitting any of the exceptions, so you comments are about as far off-base as RealityChuck’s (and I am sure he is aware there are exceptions to that rule). The Klan cannot be outlawed and the Nazis can be outlawed. They can be restrained from speech that would result in imminent lawless action. They can say whatever they want; it’s only in particular contexts that they can be stopped from saying it. The difference is enormous.
No one here is okay with that. Everyone posting in this thread would want to see the prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Belonging to a political party is not, in and of itself, a crime. Having racist/homophobic/sexist/anti-Semitic beliefs is not, in and of itself, a crime. Saying racist things isn’t a crime either.
Vandalism is a crime. Inciting violence is a crime. Denying rights to others is a crime.
This isn’t that hard.
As long as there are disenfranchised people in a nation you will always have the emergence of fringe parties with extreme views. What we ought to worry about is the mouths that speak hate and also the widening social void.
He is just another right wing nut job that is leveraging a well known marketing symbol and therefore getting plenty of press.
Do I agree with his views? NO! But I put these people in the same camp as any extreme group, they force us to ask ourselves what do we believe?
I think preventing apostrophe abuse is an even better reason.
“Nazis” just looks weird
No, they’re not. They still have a far-right and they still have the occasional hate crime. There’s no evidence that what they’re doing is working.
Only when that government is pretty much dead already. Look up the thread for my previous comment on this issue.
Banning the KKK didn’t stop them forever. This leads into my main point, so I’ll bold it so everyone sees:
Banning a hate group only works when you don’t need to ban it at all.
Why? Because if the group is still marginal enough it can be effectively banned, it’s too marginal to have an influence on politics anyway. On the other hand, if the group is actually dangerous, banning them just pushes them underground without greatly diminishing their numbers and makes it harder for the rest of the political world to see what they’re doing.
(In both cases, banning the group is the best thing you can do for it; it gives it a cachet it can’t acquire otherwise, and that sense of danger and mystery attracts followers.)
You keep using this word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Or more to the point, freedom has its proper limits and you are just the one to set them for us? If not you, then who?
As others have pointed out, your grasp of first amendment jurisprudence is rudimentary at best. One cannot incite others to imminent lawless actions, one cannot use fighting words to provoke a riot, one cannot shout fire just to see the ensuing chaos.
But to ban any speech that may incite others to action or anger them would be to ban any speech not in line with the status quo. It would negate the very function of the guarantee of free speech. Hell, I believe that the current state of jurisprudence puts too much burden on the speaker to restrain his speech and not the listener to act rationally and legally.
You don’t like the Nazis, the war left many scars that are unhealed and painful. What about communists? Many more veterans and families directly affected by the Korean and Vietnam wars are alive, do we ban communists because of the pain they caused? 9/11 is all to fresh in our memories, an act carried out by Islamic extremists. Shall we ban Islam, after all restrictions on religion are acceptable, and they caused us pain? Maybe just certain types of Islam, shall we setup a tribunal to decide?
If this country is not strong enough to live with a small number of card carrying Nazis, then it is time for it to perish from this Earth. It certainly seems time for some compulsory civics classes.
Personally I think advocating restrictions on free speech should be banned. And if anyone wants to try an end run around the ban using loopholes, then that would have to be looked at for possible violations of the law too.
:smack:
Aceplace57. you seem like you would have made a great Nazi yourself, since you advocate the arrest of people you disagree politically with.
Seriously OP, is this thread supposed to be ironic or a joke or something? If you’re serious, well that’s just sad. You have missed the point of America.
Please avoid the personal insults. (Phrasing it as a conditional doesn’t hide your intent.)
This thread has gone way beyond MPSIMS territory – I’m going to move it to GD.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator