Ban the Nazis, or ur Un-Ban the commies.

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
And, on the topic, one of the more bemusing/disturbing features of extreme right wing sites I have encountered in my travels is the presence of a white supremacist page specifically for kids as part of Stormfront. Replete with a picture of a long haired 12 year old in a cowboy hat, under which the text outlines his dislike of various racial groups.

I think I came across that too, once.
But that is nothing against a report about Russian Nazis I have seen on TV some time ago. These guys are actually wearing SA uniforms and have Hitler pictures in their rooms. When some were interviewed they didn't say much more than how much they like Hitler AND his legacy.
Somehow they must have missed that his main goal was to drive the Russians out of Europe...

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
Somehow they must have missed that his main goal was to drive the Russians out of Europe...

it's the same with many of the American Nazi/KKK groups. These people all idealize Hitler and the Third Reich while at the same time claiming America's (White America's) superiority. At least they could have a little more creativity and thought when it comes to their hate.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by santo67

Ben Franklin once said something to the effect of “A society willing to give up a few civil liberties for a little justice will receive nothing and deserve neither.”

And French philosopher Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.”

Ah, Voltaire!!! That is my favorite quote in history.

I'd never heard the Franklin quote, but it absolutely goes toward the top of my list. Very applicable to current times for sure.

Both quotes are great.

 

[TubaGuy]

My Favorite Franklin quote is "Nothing is certain but death and taxes" It still holds it's truth today. I have to agree with the voltair quote there, I like it too. And anything by Jack Handey is usualy funny, He's the one who said whats in my sig.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
The basic questions are: Should a free Democracy give people the right to agitate against it, with the potential danger of an overthrow of it? Should people have the right to incite hatred towards certain ethnic groups?

Freedom of speech is not designed to protect popular speech. It is designed to protect the worst, most discusting, lowest forms of insults, language, and thoughts in existance.

Originally posted by Hitro
I think one should think about the consequences his choice may have very well, no matter what choice that is.

Like the consequences of limiting the freedom of speech? I'd say if you were trying to avoid totalitarianism dictatorships by stopping people from advocating it, you're taking a giant leap in the direction you wish to avoid.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
Freedom of speech is not designed to protect popular speech. It is designed to protect the worst, most discusting, lowest forms of insults, language, and thoughts in existance.

Actually I think it was designed to protect political speech and religious speech. We have since extended it to cover all that which you mentioned. Lefty may be able to clarify, but political and religious speech still get more latitude than other kinds.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Like the consequences of limiting the freedom of speech? I'd say if you were trying to avoid totalitarianism dictatorships by stopping people from advocating it, you're taking a giant leap in the direction you wish to avoid.

That's the problem. On the other hand someone could argue on the basis of 'the freedom of one person ends where it restricts the freedom of another'. In that sense insults, hate speeches, etc. could be seen as restricting other peoples freedoms. So prohibiting them wouldn't mean prohihbiting freedom of speech.
While I lean towards your interpretation I'm still quite undecided on that.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by Greadius
Freedom of speech is not designed to protect popular speech. It is designed to protect the worst, most discusting, lowest forms of insults, language, and thoughts in existance.

Exactly.

When you're talking political and, especialy, religious speech.....these thoughts and words can be the worst of of the worst to others who disagree.

I think, Hitro, the question you have to ask yourself is who makes the determination on what is acceptable and what is not.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Voodoo Ace
I think, Hitro, the question you have to ask yourself is who makes the determination on what is acceptable and what is not.

You certainly have a point, that's why I don't support it.
Still complete freedom of speech isn't too sympathetic to me either. If people are calling for the extermination of minorities for example I can understand that these minorities want that to be banned.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by knowltok2
Actually I think it was designed to protect political speech and religious speech. We have since extended it to cover all that which you mentioned. Lefty may be able to clarify, but political and religious speech still get more latitude than other kinds.

You are correct. The 'fundamental freedoms' as defined by the Supreme Court recieve much more latitude... the government must prove a compelling case to restrict those and most laws that do have been struck down.

Originally posted by Hitro
If people are calling for the extermination of minorities for example I can understand that these minorities want that to be banned.

And if the minorities call for the extermination of those people do we silence them to?
Its a borderline area... in some circumstance they've been prosecuted on inciting people to act in a certain manner. On the other hand, until someone actually tries exterimination there is no crime.

 

[Napoleon Hitler]

Well, as you might be able to guess, I think that if you can have your green parties and your libertarian parties, then why shouldn't you be able to have a Nazi party? Freedom works both ways people...BOTH WAYS!

 

[Pellaken]

there are alot of nazi parties.

first, the main site:
http://www.electionworld.org/

and, NAZI parties in these countries:

Britain:http://www.bnp.org.uk/
France:http://www.front-national.com/
Italy:http://www.msifiammatric.it/
Germany:http://www.rep.de/
Japan: no major party exists
Russia: Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossii (no link provided)
Sweden: no major party exists
Netherlands: no major party exists
Canada: no major party exists

and Communist parties in these countries:

Britain:http://www.cpgb.org.uk/
France:http://www.pcf.fr/
Italy:http://www.rifondazione.it/
Germany:http://www.pds-online.de/
Japan:http://www.jcp.or.jp/
Russia:http://www.kprf.ru/
FormerUSSR:http://www.kpss.ru/
Sweden:http://www.skp.se/
Netherlands:http://www.vcp.nu/
Canada:http://www.communist-party.ca/

and NAZI's are just communists who are also nationalists. in socail belif... economically, they are right wing.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Pellaken
Germany:http://www.rep.de/

Germany:http://www.pds-online.de/

The Republicans are not a Nazi party, they are right-wing extremists but no Nazis. Nazis are outlawed.

The Democratic Socialists (PDS) are no communists, they have some members who call themselves communists, but the main party line is not communist.

There is a communist party though, called DKP (the old one was also outlawed).

 

[Pellaken]

these are the closest possible. if there are any arguments, your free to post your own links.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

You have to know a lot of languages to know what some of these parties really adovacte.

 

[Pellaken]

yes. for instance:
Ich mag wirklich grünen Käse

means:
the communists are evil

 

[Greadius]

Some of those parties are really, really funny...

I was pretty sure no party is illegal in the U.S.A. and was right. I actually found a link to the Communist Party of America! but it was down... but I have the page with the link to the parties website... the New York State Communist Party http://www.dezines.com/nyscpusa/#CPDEF

I actually found quite a few socialist parties, like...
http://www.workersparty.org/
http://www.slp.org/

I decided to check how well these parties do, in Florida anyway. Official election results for 2000...
Bush (Republican) - 2,912,790; 48.8%
Gore (Democrat) - 2,912,253; 48.8%
Nader (Green) - 97,426; 1.6% rolleyes: )
Buchanan (Reform) - 17,479; 0.3%
Browne (Libertarian) - 16,415; 0.3%

Now the real popular parties spring up...
Moorehead (Worker's World Party) - 1,804; 0.0%
Harris (Socialist Workers Party) - 562; 0.0%
McReynolds (Socialist Party of Florida) - 622; 0.0%

Go Socialists/Communists! If you combine them all, they almost got .001% of the vote! A revolution can't be far behind!

 

[TubaGuy]

Yeah our system is more or less a 2 party system, but oh well, as long as neither of those 2 parties are nazis I'm not complaining.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Pellaken, you silly little fool, the BNP is not the or a NAZI party in Britain.
That honour goes to the British Nazi Party.
There are plenty of groups and individuals to the right of the BNP.
Me, for example.

The British Nazi Party website is http://www.n9s.co.uk/

There are links pages that list pages of this type, but I will not post them, out of a sense of discretion.

"and NAZI's are just communists who are also nationalists. in socail belif... economically, they are right wing."

Tsk. There is a large difference between Nazi's and communists, both then and now. Just as there is a very large difference between fascists and communists. The difference is not just economic.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Pellaken
these are the closest possible. if there are any arguments, your free to post your own links.

I already posted my arguments. Your examples were simply wrong.
The Republicans are defintely a right-wing extremist party, but not a Nazi party. Sure the whole right-wing is 'close' to the Nazis but close doesn't mean they ARE Nazis. By the way, the NPD is the party generally considered to be the closest to Nazism, that's why the government wants to ban it.
Link

On the left there is a party that even calls itself 'Communist party', so how can the Democratic Socialists then be the closest to communism???
Link

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Tsk. There is a large difference between Nazi's and communists, both then and now. Just as there is a very large difference between fascists and communists. The difference is not just economic.

Exactly! How often does that have to be posted...