View Poll Results: Should being a nazi in your country be illegal?
Yes 21 26.25%
No 54 67.50%
banana party should be illegal 5 6.25%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28, 2003, 12:23   #91
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's




You've been reading too many of Boris' posts.
no, it's much more simple than that. Being homosexual doesn't cause your sperm to die off. They might not desire the act of heterosexual sex, but they are still physically capable of doing it.
__________________
(\__/) "Sava is teh man" -Ecthy
(='.'=)
(")_(") bring me everyone
Sava is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 12:23   #92
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally posted by panag
since when its illegal to being a nazi , since the day they starting killing people
Killing is illegal; expressing views that do not directly lead to violence is not. Why should they be an illegal group just because you don't like them?
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 12:29   #93
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7


Killing is illegal; expressing views that do not directly lead to violence is not. Why should they be an illegal group just because you don't like them?
The views of the Nazis in Germany 33 -45 lead directly to violence, it was an integral part of their ideology. That is in fact the core of the problem.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 12:51   #94
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
The views of the Bolsheviks led to violence, and the views of the SR's led to violence, but that's no excuse to start locking up socialists and anarchists.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 12:54   #95
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
The views of the Nazis in Germany 33 -45 lead directly to violence, it was an integral part of their ideology. That is in fact the core of the problem.
A better word would have been "immediately." Thus, it's ok to say that I hate so-and-so people, but if this leads to a riot or lynching shortly after my speech is not protected. By definition, a political movement spanning 12 years cannot lead to immediate violence. The speech must be handled on a case by case basis, not by banning an entire party.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 12:57   #96
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Loin: If they´d still practice it?

I mean, the Nazi Party committed a lot of crimes against political enemies even before 1933. And everybody could know what Hitler had in mind, he wrote in "Mein Kampf".

So when there is a party today which does the same, why should we do nothing against it?

BTW, as said earlier declaring a party illegal doesn´t lead neccessarily to prison for all members.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:00   #97
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
The speech must be handled on a case by case basis, not by banning an entire party.
I disagree. I a party adopts certain views as a whole, it can be treated as a whole. Still, concrete cases of violence would be treated individually here.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:05   #98
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I disagree. I a party adopts certain views as a whole, it can be treated as a whole. Still, concrete cases of violence would be treated individually here.
This flies in the face of the idea that we should prosecute people for crimes. Why on earth should we prosecute people for simple beliefs at all? A party that preaches hatred (which is different from preaching violence) should not be outlawed simply because it is not wrong to hate.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:09   #99
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Why on earth should we prosecute people for simple beliefs at all? A party that preaches hatred (which is different from preaching violence) should not be outlawed simply because it is not wrong to hate.
I´d say when you declare a party illegal, you prosecute this party as a political construct, not its members.

Therefore I said concrete cases would be still here handled individually.

What is the difference between a party which openly preaches and practises violence, and a terrorist org.?
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:12   #100
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I mean, the Nazi Party committed a lot of crimes against political enemies even before 1933. And everybody could know what Hitler had in mind, he wrote in "Mein Kampf".
I see these as being two different entirely cases, not as two analogous justifications -- violence is (and ought to be) illegal, but there isn't (and ought not to be) a law against simply hating somebody. Everybody (in the US, at any rate) knows that the KKK hates blacks and jews and catholics etc., but they're not cracked down upon because they don't (as a "party") practice violence against blacks and jews etc. -- they're (rightfully) allowed to have their impotent little rallies. The situation was different 100+ years ago (when the KKK was essentially a terrorist organization), and as a result the group was outlawed at that time.

Practicing political violence is not analogous to writing a hate manual.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost
loinburger is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:13   #101
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I´d say when you declare a party illegal, you prosecute this party as a political construct, not its members.
Even a party should still be prosecuted for acts and not beliefs. I tolerate a Nazi party preaching whatever the hell it wants until it causes violence, and that is the time to crack down.

Quote:
What is the difference between a party which openly preaches and practises violence, and a terrorist org.?
Whoa, practices violence? Obviously, parties which practice violence do not have protected speech, as it qualifies as incitement. As far as I am aware, however, a nazi party does not by definition practice violence.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:14   #102
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
loinburger
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:18   #103
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Quote:
Originally posted by loinburger

I see these as being two different entirely cases, not as two analogous justifications -- violence is (and ought to be) illegal, but there isn't (and ought not to be) a law against simply hating somebody. Everybody (in the US, at any rate) knows that the KKK hates blacks and jews and catholics etc., but they're not cracked down upon because they don't (as a "party") practice violence against blacks and jews etc. -- they're (rightfully) allowed to have their impotent little rallies. The situation was different 100+ years ago (when the KKK was essentially a terrorist organization), and as a result the group was outlawed at that time.

Practicing political violence is not analogous to writing a hate manual.
Yes, no problem with that - I don´t support any automatism in the sense of: expressing hate > gets declared illegal.

We have enough legal "hate" parties here too, there are a several neonazi parties which aren´t illegal here, and which advocate a lot of nonsense. However, the most recent case where a German party run in danger to get declared illegal developed after their members did a lot of violence. But even this wasn´t enough to declare them illegal - in the end the cons were considered more heavier.
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:25   #104
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Once again, after reading all these responses, of course not!

Just because they preach against the state and preach hatred is not justification to make any party illegal in any way shape or form. First, it'll be the Nazis, then the Communists, then the Anarchists, and every party that does say they are 'true-blue' American.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:26   #105
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
The question that must be asked is whether the violence was just conducted by a few members or whether the party as a whole incited them to violence through direct encouraging. If the party is responsible for the violence, there is a problem with the party; if the people did it because of what they believe (and that happens to be the party's belief as well), there is not.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:26   #106
Gangerolf
Prince
 
Gangerolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: KULTUR-TERROR
Posts: 958
of course not.

silly question
__________________
CSPA
Gangerolf is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 13:35   #107
MichaeltheGreat
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Apolyton Grand Executioner
 
MichaeltheGreat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fenway Pahk
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's
The fact that they can't means they don't.

Oh, Boddsies.... threadjack over
__________________
Bush-Cheney 2008. What's another amendment between friends?
*******
When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all.
MichaeltheGreat is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 15:18   #108
Lawrence of Arabia
PtWDG Gathering StormMac
King
 
Lawrence of Arabia's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California Republic
Posts: 1,240
The Nazi party should be legal. The success of fringe parties are a manifestation of a problem in society. Banning them will not make that problem go away, and will not change people's minds.
__________________
"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini
Lawrence of Arabia is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 15:47   #109
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
Quote:
Originally posted by loinburger

I see these as being two different entirely cases, not as two analogous justifications -- violence is (and ought to be) illegal, but there isn't (and ought not to be) a law against simply hating somebody. Everybody (in the US, at any rate) knows that the KKK hates blacks and jews and catholics etc., but they're not cracked down upon because they don't (as a "party") practice violence against blacks and jews etc. -- they're (rightfully) allowed to have their impotent little rallies. The situation was different 100+ years ago (when the KKK was essentially a terrorist organization), and as a result the group was outlawed at that time.

Practicing political violence is not analogous to writing a hate manual.


I Hate Hate Haters.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 17:05   #110
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
"Nazism shouldn't be banned, but commiting illegal acts in its name SHOULD."

Anybody else find this unintentionally funny as well as slightly confusing?

Are you saying that Nazis should have harsher jail sentences for committing the same crimes that non-Nazis commit? Or are you adding an additional charge, the crime of committing crimes in the name of Nazism, on top of the already illegal acts?
No, I did not mean that. It was poorly worded. I just meant that it being Nazism (and by extension, a perverse form of "political expression") should not exempt it from the law.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 18:08   #111
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
The only instance in which I can see banning a political/social organization is if said organization advocates violence against others as a part of its platform/doctrine.

Now as to the degree with which the violence is explicit or implicit...that's a thornier question. We could err on the side of caution and only ban groups with explicit calls for violence, but that will let some organizations get away with implicitly inciting violence against despised people/groups. I think that's something with which to be concerned.

And I'd be happy to introduce Bodds to several gay men and women I know who have children. Ok, maybe not happy, as I'd not want to inflict him on decent folk.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo è burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 18:22   #112
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Even if it "advocates" violence or some other illegal act, you should not ban it, because they are using their freedom of expression to try and change the law. We may find it offensive, but they have an equally valid viewpoint. However, INCITING (intentionally and actively, which is very difficult to prove) illegal acts is and should be illegal. Look at it this way: it was not illegal before the civil war (or after ) to ADVOCATE slave revolts, etc. However, it was, and rightly so, illegal to INCITE them, not because slavery was morally acceptible (thought to some it was), but because they had not managed to make it legal yet! The point of the distinction (which has actually been made many times in US courts) is to protect a peaceful system by which people can try and change laws. Otherwise, ANY advocacy of changing a law would be illegal.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 19:22   #113
Space05us
King
 
Space05us's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,709
Okay I have a question. Being a nazi has been made ilegal, now what?
Do you put them in jail?
Do you restrict thier political freedoms?
Do you refuse them public service?

And if you do do any of these things how are you advocating a free society? We might as well go back to constitutional monarchy, as all you are doing is opressing people and breeding anger and hatred. They will tell you to take your political freedoms and your public services and shove it. The next thing you know they will be lashing out at society as a whole.

How is ilegalizing being a member of a political party, or holding certain political beliefs, going to help anything? Sure you can run through the streets jumping with joy and glee then the next minutue you know police officers and government officials are being harassed and killed. Either that or people are being ripped from thier homes and thrown in jail in order to prevent them from lashing out.

edit: The same thing would happen as what happend to black people not to long ago, when thier constitutional right were restricted.
Space05us is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 19:27   #114
kolpo
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 314
So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"


They do not violate any law,do not commit violence, so based on your rethoric should it be allowed in the US.

Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will at the moment be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.
kolpo is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 19:30   #115
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
I didn't say it would be allowed, I said it should be allowed.

Anyway, I bet it would win if they weren't inciting any of those things, just advocating them (and proved they weren't a terrorist front), as the courts tend to have a very long-term view of things.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 19:31   #116
Space05us
King
 
Space05us's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:29
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"


They do no violete any law,do not commit violence, so based on your retoric should it be allowed in the US.

Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.

If they did not break the law in any way then fine, let them have thier political party. They shouldnt expect much sympathy when thier houses get burned down and thier families are murdered, but of they want to have thier political party I say let them have it.
Space05us is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 20:33   #117
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally posted by kolpo
So would a party named "The pro terrorism party" with the following ideology be allowed in the current US:

"We believe that the constitution must be changed:
-free speech should become illegal.
-terrorism should become legal.
-non-muslims should no longer be considered "human""
-We believe that nobody may do illegal actions, non of these actions may take place until we get elected and change the constitution"

They do not violate any law,do not commit violence, so based on your rethoric should it be allowed in the US.
Yes. Go Terrorism party.
I would think these guys were lower than dirt, but they still have rights just like I do even if they are sh*theads.

Quote:
Well if you would do the experiment do I heavily doubt that this party will at the moment be allowed, so I think that the US is just as represive towards some ideas(terrorism must become legal) as Europe.
And I say that's a pile of manure. As long as the party did not give "material aid" to terrorists or incite terrorism itself, it's legal.
__________________
Lime roots and treachery!
"Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten
Cyclotron is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 20:35   #118
Jaguar
C4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Jaguar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 4,790
I don't mind infringements upon the rights of nazis. However, I do hate David Floyd whining about civil liberties. So I will side with him.
__________________
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran

Eschewing silly games since December 4, 2005
Jaguar is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 21:10   #119
Kidicious
Deity
 
Kidicious's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,628
Quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
and nah... considering that when there's a KKK rally, there's three people in hoods and hundreds of protestors... there's no need to have them be illegal... if anything, their cause is harmed by it being legal as they are ridiculed so much...
The federal govt should have declared war on the KKK long ago and crushed them. The KKK killed and terrorised a lot of people. None of it had to occur.

The Nazis should be outlawed too. Anyone who preaches hate should be.
Kidicious is offline  
Old May 28, 2003, 21:12   #120
Vandal-1
Call to Power Democracy GameCall to Power MultiplayerCall to Power PBEM
Chieftain
 
Vandal-1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:29
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Gilette WY USA
Posts: 64
Fasicm is allowed evidently,but they don't call themselves Nazis. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet.
have a nice day.
Vandal-1 is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:29.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team