• Neo-nazis marches through Stockholm, tiny riot occur
    113 replies, posted
[QUOTE=be;44536931]So it's okay to take away a group's freedom of speech/expression as long as you disagree with them? I am not surprised at all, but what worries me is that you (and the 8 people who agreed with you) don't seem to understand how childish that is. [editline]13th April 2014[/editline] holy shit[/QUOTE] Let me know the cutoff for when it's justified for me to start suppressing nazism: -they organize in groups -have political parties -are doing marches -forming militias -actively support racist ideals -organize acts of violence against minorities -terrorize groups at the polls during elections -have power in local government -have power in national parliament -make laws against minorities -make laws against "rights" -start killing people under the state -holocaust round 2 At what point am I allowed to enact resistance? At what point am I justified in opposing these guys? When does your flimsy notion of free speech give me the ability to defend what's right? Do I need to wait until they're making laws through democratic control? Do I need to wait until they're legally killing people? Illegally? Have power? What?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44540735']Let me know the cutoff for when it's justified for me to start suppressing nazism: -they organize in groups -have political parties -are doing marches -forming militias -actively support racist ideals -organize acts of violence against minorities -terrorize groups at the polls during elections -have power in local government -have power in national parliament -make laws against minorities -make laws against "rights" -start killing people under the state -holocaust round 2 At what point am I allowed to enact resistance? At what point am I justified in opposing these guys? When does your flimsy notion of free speech give me the ability to defend what's right? Do I need to wait until they're making laws through democratic control? Do I need to wait until they're legally killing people? Illegally? Have power? What?[/QUOTE] It depends on what you mean by "forming militias" but it would either be that or "organize acts of violence against minorities" where it stops being free speech. I don't get how this is so hard to understand. Acts of violence against minorities has nothing to do with free speech. The cutoff is obvious.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44540810]It depends on what you mean by "forming militias" but it would either be that or "organize acts of violence against minorities" where it stops being free speech. I don't get how this is so hard to understand. Acts of violence against minorities has nothing to do with free speech. The cutoff is obvious.[/QUOTE] And if they are able to begin legally enacting violence? Or even just spreading violence through advocating their position? If they murder minorities one day and do a peaceful protest the next, is it still ok for me to coerce them? I think you all forget that the actions of Hitler were legitimized by the fact that he was democratically elected and then through legitimate processes of government was given power, which he heightened through legal and legitimate means (tho the reason for those were not legit, i.e. Reichstag fire). By all means everything after that was legal and democratically legitimate under the provisions of Germany's democratically chosen laws. If we're willing to say that hitler's legal oppression was not ok, then we need to accept that the reason for that was because [I]he was a nazi and nazism is bad[/I], and that we don't need a legal ultimatum or green light because of overt violence to see that it ought to be opposed. "Nazis are ok, so long as they aren't enacting what they want to enact!"
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44540837']And if they are able to begin legally enacting violence?[/quote] They're not though? In what case is this actually a thing? Outside of autocracies and single-party dictatorships, where is this type of violence legalized? [quote]Or even just spreading violence through advocating their position?[/quote] What do you mean by "spreading violence"? That's an incredibly vague term. Inciting riots and making calls for attacks on specific groups with the intent to be followed up on extends past free speech because that type of speech is actual violent in and of itself. And I would be careful what you wish for if you think banning "spreading violence through advocating their position" is a good idea, considering all the calls for 'revolution' by the many communists and anarchists around the world. [quote]If they murder minorities one day and do a peaceful protest the next, is it still ok for me to coerce them?[/quote] You're not this dumb dude, I know you're not. Groups organizing assaults and murders has nothing to do with free speech, and they should be disbanded and the perpetrators arrested just like in any other case of violence. [quote]I think you all forget that the actions of Hitler were legitimized by the fact that he was democratically elected and then through legitimate processes of government was given power, which he heightened through legal and legitimate means (tho the reason for those were not legit, i.e. Reichstag fire). By all means everything after that was legal and democratically legitimate under the provisions of Germany's democratically chosen laws. If we're willing to say that hitler's legal oppression was not ok, then we need to accept that the reason for that was because [I]he was a nazi and nazism is bad[/I], and that we don't need a legal ultimatum or green light because of overt violence to see that it ought to be opposed.[/quote] The legality of Hitler's rise to power is dubious at best, and was only able to occur due to the shoddy political system of Germany at the time. To act like something like that could happen today - a fringe minority seizing control over the whole country - is ludicrous. That's not a danger in an actual, functioning democracy with a stable system. And no, we don't need to say that his repression was bad just because he was a Nazi. It was bad because it was repression. The legality of it has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good thing. Was DOMA a good law just because it was legal? And was the only real argument against it "conservatives are bad"? [quote]"Nazis are ok, so long as they aren't enacting what they want to enact!"[/QUOTE] Yes. What's the problem?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44540837']And if they are able to begin legally enacting violence? Or even just spreading violence through advocating their position? If they murder minorities one day and do a peaceful protest the next, is it still ok for me to coerce them? I think you all forget that the actions of Hitler were legitimized by the fact that he was democratically elected and then through legitimate processes of government was given power, which he heightened through legal and legitimate means (tho the reason for those were not legit, i.e. Reichstag fire). By all means everything after that was legal and democratically legitimate under the provisions of Germany's democratically chosen laws. If we're willing to say that hitler's legal oppression was not ok, then we need to accept that the reason for that was because [I]he was a nazi and nazism is bad[/I], and that we don't need a legal ultimatum or green light because of overt violence to see that it ought to be opposed. "Nazis are ok, so long as they aren't enacting what they want to enact!"[/QUOTE] It's ironic and hypocritical for you to be doing this talk while you have the image of a genocider in your profile image.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44540810]It depends on what you mean by "forming militias" but it would either be that or "organize acts of violence against minorities" where it stops being free speech. I don't get how this is so hard to understand. Acts of violence against minorities has nothing to do with free speech. The cutoff is obvious.[/QUOTE] If they use words to incite violence in a crowd, is the crowd responsible or are the people who urged them into responsible? just a question.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];44540735']When does your flimsy notion of free speech give me the ability to defend what's right?[/QUOTE] this sounds like a far right attack on free speech
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44541055]If they use words to incite violence in a crowd, is the crowd responsible or are the people who urged them into responsible? just a question.[/QUOTE] I'm sure all parties involved will get punished.
[img]http://puu.sh/88hZ0.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44531975]and that's one of the reasons i'll never really be able to give a shit when nazi's get fucked over, anyone that idolizes those scum and wants to bring about a regime like that again is a maniac or a moron that deserves whatever they get[/QUOTE] if you got into power i'd leave the country immediately
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;44531975]and that's one of the reasons i'll never really be able to give a shit when nazi's get fucked over, anyone that idolizes those scum and wants to bring about a regime like that again is a maniac or a moron that deserves whatever they get[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is that free speech is only a good thing when you agree with what's being said? Gee, that sounds familiar.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44542853]So what you're saying is that free speech is only a good thing when you agree with what's being said? Gee, that sounds familiar.[/QUOTE] free speech is a nice idea, as long as you don't disagree with me
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44541055]If they use words to incite violence in a crowd, is the crowd responsible or are the people who urged them into responsible? just a question.[/QUOTE] In the same way that you can be held accountable for conspiracy to commit murder, you can be held accountable for purposely inciting violence and it actually being carried out. However, the charge almost always has to be a reaction to a crime, not a proscription of a certain type of speech. Otherwise, there's no end to what somebody could consider "incitement."
[QUOTE=Explosions;44542912]In the same way that you can be held accountable for conspiracy to commit murder, you can be held accountable for purposely inciting violence and it actually being carried out. However, the charge almost always has to be a reaction to a crime, not a proscription of a certain type of speech. Otherwise, there's no end to what somebody could consider "incitement."[/QUOTE]Yeah, it's really circumstantial, but thinking on it I think there's a clear distinction between riling people up and actually inciting them to do something in that state. Like, if I got a bunch of people really pumped about blueberries, then hours later they beat the shit out of somebody who likes strawberries, I wouldn't be at fault. However, if I get them really agitated and then start ordering them to flog motherfuckers in the streets, yeah, I'd be doing a bad thing.
Feel free to say you hate black people/ Slavic people/ people who wear glasses/ whatever the fuck, but don't be shocked if you get publicly humiliated and shamed for having an opinion so judgmental of other people. That still doesn't make it okay to literally throw stones at them, though. Seems like another case of 'far-left' just being 'stupid loonies who think left-wing ideology just consists of chaos and fuck the police'. [editline]15th April 2014[/editline] I think personal, directed abuse stands on a different line though. Though the abuse should have to actually be intentionally destructive or malicious to actually count as something which should be punished legally.
Free speech should not be given in all cases Especially if it includes hate speech, like Nazism
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44549959]Free speech should not be given in all cases Especially if it includes hate speech, like Nazism[/QUOTE] can i write books on nazi thought and publish them
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44549959]Free speech should not be given in all cases Especially if it includes hate speech, like Nazism[/QUOTE] That would technically not make it "free speech."
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44549959]Free speech should not be given in all cases Especially if it includes hate speech, like Nazism[/QUOTE]Sometimes I wish free speech should not be given in cases when people make posts like these. Free speech is free speech, if you limit it then it's not free speech anymore. Sure, this allows people to say really dumb shit, but that doesn't stop you from being normal and just ignoring the dumb shit they're saying.
One man's freedom ends where another's begins. You're allowed to say anything you want and everybody else can and will take you responsible.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;44550320]That would technically not make it "free speech."[/QUOTE] Well, true. The thing is that nothing good can come from some fanatics walking around shouting Nazi paroles, so they shouldn't be allowed to do so
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44553055]Well, true. The thing is that nothing good can come from some fanatics walking around shouting Nazi paroles, so they shouldn't be allowed to do so[/QUOTE]They have opinions, just like you. Just because their opinions are wrong doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to voice them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.