Sponsored Links

[illuminati]

The rise of neonazism after the WWII in Europe and America is definetely not a positive thing. Number of books and films have addressed this problem in various ways, from depicting neonazism as abominable hatred, to trying to examine and understand the root of the popularity of Nazi ideals among certain demographic groups, to trying to dissect the negative social phenomena that galvanize growth of Neonazism among the youth of US, UK, Russia and others.
But should groups like National Socialist Movement (self-proclaimed Nazi Party of America) and Ku Klux Klan be allowed to exist and convene on regular basis?
Should we outlaw meeting, membership and possession/wearing of uniforms and regalia of these organizations? What actions should be taken regarding these groups, if any?
Please explain and justify your point of view.

[Grendel72]

I voted for option three.
People should have a right to express their views, no matter how loathsome... but when someone preaches hate and advocates violence it is only obvious that for the good of society we should keep tabs on them.

[ConservPat]

A combination of #2 and #3. They should be able to express their views, as part of the first amendment, but should be monitored by law enforcement strictly.

CP

[Paladin Elspeth]

It seems to me to be a lot easier letting them express themselves publicly and keeping things peaceful than driving them underground and not being able to keep an eye on them.

Besides, there is a higher principle involved here. Today the group in question is the Neo-Nazi group. Tomorrow it might be a group that you or I belong to that may be in disfavor for some reason. The freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly must not be eroded.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Mar 27 2004, 11:12 PM

[offwind]

#3 They should be free to express their views. Verbally and in writing but limited by any existing laws or regulations governing hate speech. If additional laws are needed to suppress their activities further they should be passed by a majority of our elected reps and such laws should be subject to judicial review to insure that their 1st amendment rights are not being abridged.

[Victoria Silverw...]

I definitely go with allowing them full freedom of speech. It may be naive, but I have always believed that the best way to discredit evil ideas is by letting them be heard as clearly as possible. I certainly don't want to create martyrs or make something seem attractive becuase it is forbidden.

This post has been edited by Victoria Silverwolf: Mar 28 2004, 04:04 AM

[Rancid Uncle]

Radical racist groups are so incredibly disgusting I would try almost anything to get rid of them. Their kind of rabid ignorance and bigotry doesn't belong in decent society. But I don't think that we can consitutionally outlaw any organization no matter how much we hate them. I would however have the FBI harass them as much as possible and if their members commit a hate crime I would make sure they get sued for it. This method has really gotten rid of some terrible groups. That along with some work by private organizations can chase those crazy baldheads out of town.

This post has been edited by Rancid Uncle: Mar 28 2004, 04:37 AM

[Artemise]

That along with some work by private organizations can chase those crazy baldheads out of town.

Whoops, RU. Id watch the stereotypes. Many balding men are shaving their heads these days and have tatoos too, and are peaceful people.

Constitutionally, absolute free speech. I also dont think they should be 'unusually' monitored, but if things get to 'cult status' and violence against others is indicated, then yes, they should be monitored. Monitored being just that, not threatened or arrested, unless there is a crime.
Step out of line, in any way, first acts, or percieved acts of violence, such as threats, extortion, or recruitment of minors, and I believe in bringing the full arm of the law upon these groups. Peaceful assembly, in uniform or out is fine. ONE act of violence or ANYTHING perceived as such, and the whole group is then subject to close monitoring, for ever.

Free speech is part and parcel. Talk all you want, ACT detrimentally, and you have blown your right to life as we know it, swiftley, and with sweeping predjudice. ALL, not just the perp, but the entire organization.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Mar 28 2004, 11:52 AM

[GoAmerica]

I voted "Yes, they should be outlawed/banned" because, as a country, we need to shake off the hate we have for different types of people whether they be African-Americans or Jews. We are all human. Letting them stay together as legal groups & using the First Amendement to do so is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution

[overlandsailor]

I have always believed that the best way to discredit evil ideas is by letting them be heard as clearly as possible

Wow! excellent point. And for the most part it is true. Though, when the people only get to hear one side of an issue then they will tend to believe it.

Thankfully, these days, people have access to so many sources of information they can get both sides of any issue if they choose to.

[nighttimer]

Oh Artemise? Those "crazy baldheads" that Rancid Uncle is talking about is a subtle reference to a Bob Marley song.

Though I find Neo-Nazis and their ilk anti-human, anti-American and anti-me, I also subscribe to the theory that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Driving hate groups underground where they can congregate secretly and silently is more dangerous than having their idiocy out in the open for all to see.

The problem with the government monitoring extremists on the right mean they also are monitoring extremists on the left and pretty soon everybody else in the middle. That old "slippery slope" theory kicks in again.

[Horyok]

#1 - They should be banned.

The KKK is known for having lynched black people, just in the name of the cause. How disgusting is that!!! How can you let these people free to spread their hatred?

I have always believed that the best way to discredit evil ideas is by letting them be heard as clearly as possible

Wow! excellent point. And for the most part it is true. Though, when the people only get to hear one side of an issue then they will tend to believe it.

Thankfully, these days, people have access to so many sources of information they can get both sides of any issue if they choose to.

Unfortunately, the fact is that some people will still choose to follow neonazism for their own personal reasons. You know that. Promoting neonazism will only make it stronger and create fear, anger and resentment between communities.

Your democracy will not save you here, because that's exactly how the extreme right prospers : they claim the right to express themselves and they turn your constitution against you. By the time you understand what's going on, it will be too late already.

Your country is leading a war against worldwide terrorism, an ideology of hatred. Neonazism is also an ideology of hatred. It's not based on religion differences, it's based on race differences. It's equally evil.

We've had Hitler here in Europe. Don't be stupid and candid like we were in 1939, because you are no better than we are. So get rid of this plague while you still can and ban it.

This post has been edited by Horyok: Mar 28 2004, 08:49 PM

[Cyan]

But should groups like National Socialist Movement (self-proclaimed Nazi Party of America) and Ku Klux Klan be allowed to exist and convene on regular basis?

Absolutely. The freedom of speech is gauranteed in the first amendment, and while I may not agree with the speech of groups like the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement, I would certainly fight for their right to use that speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Should we outlaw meeting, membership and possession/wearing of uniforms and regalia of these organizations? What actions should be taken regarding these groups, if any?

This is clearly covered in the constitution, as I have bolded in the quote above, and any action that should be taken against these groups should only be taken when they cross the boundaries of speech into the territory of other illegal activities.

I think that Victoria Silverwolf said it best with this quote:

It may be naive, but I have always believed that the best way to discredit evil ideas is by letting them be heard as clearly as possible. I certainly don't want to create martyrs or make something seem attractive becuase it is forbidden.

Your democracy will not save you here, because that's exactly how the extreme right prospers : they claim the right to express themselves and they turn your constitution against you. By the time you understand what's going on, it will be too late already.

So, do we apply this to other groups as well? What about the extreme religious right? I feel that they preach hate against homosexuals and their speech in turn causes violence. Should their freedom of speech be revoked? Should they be disallowed to assemble?

I hate the ideology that the neonazis espouse, but if we don't protect our constitution, what do we have? The erosion of rights for one group may seem like it's an advancement of society, but what if I'm next on the blacklist?

Edited to fix typo

This post has been edited by Cyan: Mar 28 2004, 10:18 PM

[Hugo]

Should Malcolm X have been persecuted? How about Louis Farrakhan? Where do we stop once we start censoring hate speech and banning hate groups?

This post has been edited by Hugo: Mar 28 2004, 09:14 PM

[Piper Plexed]

Horyok Posted on Mar 28 2004, 03:40 PM

Your democracy will not save you here, because that's exactly how the extreme right prospers : they claim the right to express themselves and they turn your constitution against you. By the time you understand what's going on, it will be too late already.

Our Constitution is based on the rights of the individual to liberty of thought and speech though when people actually exercise their rights we must now throw the constitution out the window? Lets look back to why the United States exists in the first place, because we were driven out of our homelands (in the case of my ancestors France) as a result of our thoughts and speech. It is the laws that will protect us from the harm that an individuals thoughts and speech may or may not lead to. It is a persons actions that the laws can only have power over and it is actions that the laws must address. Thoughts and speech do not infringe on anothers liberty only actions have the power to do that. I certainly see your concerns though the remedy you suggest undermines the basis of our society. Our Constitution states that liberties may only be infringed upon through due process of the law. The law addresses the actions of the individual.

edited...typos

This post has been edited by Piper Plexed: Mar 29 2004, 02:58 AM

[DaytonRocker]

I voted #2. It shouldn't be against the law to act like an idiot.

There are plenty of laws in place to protect against unlawful actions, so you don't need a sheet on your head to commit a hate crime.

If we start banning groups based on association, where do we stop? Ban the NRA because at times, they seem to promote gun violence (note: I'm not accusing them of anything. But many would agree with that premise)? Ban Boy Scouts because they don't like gays? Ban "InMyUndiesMFM" chat rooms because it's a public health issue?

It's a slippery slope problem (much like my opposition to gay marriage and the like). Where does it stop?

Years ago, a group lobbied to ban smoking from airplanes. They never wanted anything else, other than to not be stuck in an airplane breathing second-hand smoke when you had no other recourse.

The rest is history.

[Titus]

I voted for optoion three because even though Neo-Nazis, in my opinion are a bunch of dirtbags that insult my heritage by bringing back the ideology of a few twisted Germans, they do have the right to speak their mind.

But the first time one of them performs a violent hate crime, i.e. murder or assault, fry his... well, you know.

This is a tricky issue. How can we defend the fundamental freedom of speech, whilst protecting those who are threatend by such speech?

I believe that, although they're dirbags, these groups have the right to exist. But that those who disseminate racist, biggoted, and violent platforms of hate to anyone and everyone who willl listen must be monitored 24/7 and to the highest detail. If that means the FBI creates files on everyone of those idiots, although it is a scary precedent (the FBI having a KGB side, that is), it is the only way I see to protect the Bill of Rights along with the people who possess those rights.

[Vermillion]

I seem to be in the minority that voted for #1. Perhaps being a modern historian has made me particularily sensitive to this issue, but I must say groups as extreme as this should be banned.

I concur with the notion of freedom of speech, and people should have the right to say almost anything they want, no matter how repulsive.

But neo-Nazi groups and KKK-style groups do not define themselves by what they are for, they define themselves by what they are against. They preach hatred, lies, intolerance and violence against groups of coulour or ethnicity. They incite action and hold in highest esteem acts of violence based on this intolerance.

If you as a person get up and say you don't like jews, I think you are an idiot, but you are an idiot who is within his right to make such a statement.

If you get up and make comments like the only good jew is a dead jew, or praise people who have killed or mistreated blacks and call for more of the same, then you have passed beyond the protection of freedom of speech.


If you want to be a credible leader of a war on terrorism, then perhaps you might want to first crack down on groups whose only purpose is to cause terror among minorites by painting swatikas, burning crosses, defacing gravestones and even attacking these minorities when the opportunity arises. These organisations ane a blemish on humanity, and to allow them to continue to preach violence, bigotry and hatred say as much about the society that permits it as it does the malcontents who do it.

[Christopher]

I am so very tired of cowards. Ban this! Ban it now! We must Get THEM before they get US!

These groups survive because of the cowardess shown by such people. Protect me from the bad people please. They scare me.
You want them gone then you have no other choice but to confront them! Call them on their IGNORANCE. Drag their cowardice and fear of anything different and their spiteful hate out into the light and expose it for what it is.
Falsehoods, Weakness, Cowardice, Ignorance.
Expose them and watch it shrivel up and die.
Try to ban any of them and they will use it to recruit other weakminded losers.
They will say "See they are afraid of us because they KNOW we are right."
Your own actions will reinforce their credibility. All you'll do is further their cause.

At the same time drag out your own prejudices and face them yourself. That is the only way to defeat such evil.

[Paladin Elspeth]

Vermillion,

I am sure you know that the United States already has special laws in place regarding hate crimes that carry especially severe penalties. When these people cross the line, they are arrested and prosecuted.

I agree with Christopher; to try to get rid of these groups is to actually give them power. Individuals with persecution complexes gravitate to these groups. To have their peaceful gatherings tolerated (not accepted; there is a big difference) actually removes some of their power as those who come to see and listen to them are given a chance to make up their own minds as to the validity (or lack thereof) of the group's statements.