I still have this one question about Nazis

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Aug 18, 2017.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    Clearly, Nazism is a repugnant doctrine practiced by damaged people. But it's not illegal. It's legal for there to be a Nazi Party, Nazi media, Nazi gatherings and Nazi chants and speeches. If we don't want that, then we need to outlaw it. But if it's not outlawed, then we can't deny them from the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

    So which is it? If it's legal, then we have to tolerate their presence. If we act against their legal rights, then we are in the wrong. We let the Phelps family shout the most horrendous things. What difference is there when Nazis chant their vulgarisms? Both are groups of brain damaged and emotionally stunted people who publicize their hate for others. But so long as no other laws are broken, we are obligated to allow them the same freedoms of assembly and expression as we would reasonably allow any other torch-bearing, racist group.

    If we take away their rights, it has to be for really good (constitutional) reason. Any thoughts?
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    I don't think anyone has ever advocated taking their rights away. We all know and realize that what they say, what their platform is, and how they go about it is their 1A protected right.

    The problem here is that when someone stands up against them, they try to play the victim and say that what they are wanting to say, their platform, and how they go about presented their platform is being taken away, infringing on their 1A right.

    There is some major cognitive dissonance there, because one can not equate using their own 1A right to speak out against them, petition against them, and assemble against them as removing their rights to do the same. That is where their problem lies.

    They can have their 1A right; but play the victim when another uses their 1A right is asinine. It's like the "religious freedom laws" that were trying to be passed, and those playing the victim there wanting others to "Accept and tolerate our intolerance". Same applies here. We'll accept it and tolerate it; but that doesn't mean we don't have to stand up against it. And when we do stand up against it, they have to tolerate it just as much as we have to tolerate them.

    If they can't, then they need to find another country which to live. I hear the DPRK is in need.

    BL.
     
  3. LordVic macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #3
    It's a paradox of tolerance.

    How tolerant of intolerance can we be, before the intolerance overrides the tolerant and society turns into a community of intolerance.
     
  4. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #4
    This seems an appropriate place to mention this...

    Even the ACLU is reexamining what reasonable limits can be placed on free speech...

    The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday it would no longer represent white supremacist groups who demonstrate with guns.

    ACLU spokeswoman Stacy Sullivan told Reuters that the announced policy shift doesn’t change the group’s position on civil liberties; it was prompted more by a concern over firearms, she said.

    “We’ve had people with odious views, all manner of bigots. But not people who want to carry weapons and are intent on committing violence,” she said.

    Charlottesville violence prompts ACLU to change policy on hate groups protesting with guns

    The question of how to defend the speech rights of white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis has dogged the ACLU for years. The Los Angeles Times illustrated this point by digging up a 1934 pamphlet created by the ACLU’s board of directors. The pamphlet was titled “Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America?” (See link below)

    The ACLU asks in 1934: Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    Don't forget antifa..
     
  6. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #6
    they are not nazi's with guns.
     
  7. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #7
    Still trying to make that comparison, are you? (While ignoring the elephant in the room.)
     
  8. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    The elephant ran over him and pooped on him and he still will are it. I mean he even is willing to forgot history in the attempt
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    They are violent retards too
    --- Post Merged, Aug 18, 2017 ---
    They are not examining what limits can be placed. They are seeing what they will chose to defend.
     
  10. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #10
    Of course they are... read the '34 palette.

    If you don't believe there are already responsible limits on freedom of speech in place, then here's a simple test you can try: Strap on all your guns and go make a speech in front of your city hall calling for others to join you in your plan to take over said city hall.... Wait.... See what happens.
     
  11. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #11
    Being what I am I enjoy the privilege of not having many epithets thrown my way so I'm not sure if I can answer that well, but a friend of mine is happy to allow, not outlaw, the n word so that he can know who the racists are and call them out on it. By outlawing the Nazi flag and such we aren't going to change how these people feel, and we'd simply be putting them out of sight - yet the first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that it exists. Granted, by explicitly allowing them their 1A they have the ability to advertise their views and perform recruitment, but at the same time people would then see and react to their ideology which would be a good thing. (Assuming the reaction isn't similar vitriol that's simply going in the opposite direction.)

    Are we so bad a species and society that the only thing keeping all of us from devolving into racist tribalism is outlawing flags, symbols and words? No, I think we're better than that. I think we can allow really bad people to exercise first amendment rights yet still remain a kind, caring, color blind society.
     
  12. shyam09 macrumors 68020

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #12
    Coincidentally, I was thinking about something similar the other day as well but I got lost in other work and forgot to submit the post.

    To sort of build off citizenzen's post - let's take the event of Charlottesville, twist it around, and now let's say that a protester from the "left" drove into the white supremacist / Neo-Nazi group and killed a Neo-Nazi.

    To me, the first thought is "poetic justice", but a part of me questions whether it's appropriate to even have such a thought given that these people are still given the same rights and liberties as any other legal citizen. Should I think and treat them differently because of their belief in hatred for specific groups of people? Then again, their use of those rights and liberties are not for the benefit of anyone.

    Going off the quote, former president Obama tweeted out the other day by Nelson Mandela: "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."

    Should we be reaching out to White Supremacists and Neo Nazis and trying to help them realize the foolishness of their hatred, or do we just accept that they've already gone off the far end? There have been members of the KKK who have given up their ways, so it's not an impossible task. Violence only gives birth to more violence and hatred, and this clash in Charlottesville will only give rise to more hatred.

    I'm sure I come off sounding puzzled; it's because I've been thinking about this question for a few days now.
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #13

    Perfectly said.
     
  14. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    It's an interesting argument. But frustration over someone playing the victim is more of a public relations issue than a legal one. And I understand the problem with trump trying to equivocate the two sides. But I've heard a lot of opinions talking about how intolerable the Nazis are, and I'm concerned because we have no choice but to tolerate them.
     
  15. darksithpro, Aug 18, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017

    darksithpro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    #15
    Do you guys remember back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, cities like Los Angeles got so fed up with gangs they actually sued them and won. Preventing them from wearing their colors, hanging out in large groups and even financial restitution?

    Here's an article about something like that. I wonder, without changing the Constitution, would it be possible for cities and communities to launch class action lawsuits against those groups like they did with the gangbangers?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20025390/...courts/t/cities-try-disrupt-gangs-suing-them/

    FORT WORTH, Texas — Fed up with deadly drive-by shootings, incessant drug dealing and graffiti, cities nationwide are trying a different tactic to combat gangs: They’re suing them.

    Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.

    The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don’t allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.

    “It is another tool,” said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. “This is more of a proactive approach.”

    A lawsuit too far?
    But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.

    “If you’re barring people from talking in the streets, it’s difficult to tell if they’re gang members or if they’re people discussing issues,” said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “And it’s all the more troubling because it doesn’t seem to be effective.”

    Civil injunctions were first filed against gang members in the 1980s in the Los Angeles area, a breeding ground for gangs including some of the country’s most notorious, such as the Crips and 18th Street.

    The Los Angeles city attorney’s suit in 1987 against the Playboy Gangster Crips covered the entire city but was scaled back after a judge deemed it too broad.

    Chicago tried to target gangs by enacting an anti-loitering ordinance in 1992 but the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in 1999, saying it gave police the authority to arrest without cause.

    Since then, cities have used injunctions to target specific gangs or gang members, and so far that strategy has withstood court challenges.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    The police need to be present when either side becomes violent and complete a boot in ass procedure immediately to whichever group starts the violence. The last rally was a **** show with all out brawls in the street.

    Not liking the message of another group isn't an excuse for violent behaviour.
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    imo, Nazi speech borders on inciting hate or violence. In the ruling on shouting a false "fire" in a theatre by the SC 95-plus years ago, there was a limit on speech inferring such motives. Yet Alex Jones marches on...so what do I know?
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    Yelling fire infers immediate danger and causes injury due to panics. Yelling blood and soil, not sure what the **** it even means.
     
  19. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #19
    we don't often agree, but absolutely right. no-one likes nazis...but in a Country with rule-of-law, you can't just go vigilante, no matter how well-intentioned.
    --- Post Merged, Aug 18, 2017 ---
    sometimes I think you're deliberately obtuse...
     
  20. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #20
    KKK was neutered in the Civil Rights Era largely by legal actions that drained their coffers...

    Science, man..
    . All you have to do these days is speak into your phone and you'll find many of your questions will be answered. Science...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_and_Soil
     
  21. Zenithal macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #21
    As disgusting as they are, they do have a right to voice their opinions. I wouldn't feel comfortable encroaching on someone's 1st amendment rights. That is to say they shouldn't not expect to be punished for it by private parties. The process of DeNazification in post-war Germany is incredibly complex and isn't as simple as people make it out to be.

    Call me nutty, but the chances of another mass genocide happening in a relatively first-world nation (barring the outdated term, stick with me here) are decent. History has a habit of repeating itself, even if we've learned from it.
     
  22. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #22
    How are people expected to learn things if they’re not etched into statues?
     
  23. Starfighter macrumors 6502a

    Starfighter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #23
    It's illegal to express nazi sympathy (through symbols etc) over here in that it's a hate crime. In societies where it isn't illegal it becomes the tolerance paradox LordVic mentioned.

    Personally I subscribe to the belief that ultimate freedom comes with one inherent rule - which is that you are free to do what you want as long as it doesn't affect another persons freedom.
     
  24. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #24
    Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, etc. - the presumption must be not to curtail these liberties. Too many people have suffered from such actions simply because they were members of an unpopular group (e.g. socialists during the McCarthy era, Japanese-Americans during WWII, LGBT people until modern day, not to mention people of dark skin throughout US history). The US has enough moral stains on its hands, so let us eschew adding more. That doesn't give the loathsome (dare I say it? deplorable) Nazi morons a free pass to commit violence or hate crimes, but their rights should not be denied pre-emptively because they might commit a crime.
     
  25. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #25
    If their slogans aren't self descriptive they really aren't worth the time for me to search them. I'd rather remain ignorant to what these people preach really.
     

Share This Page