28-05-2003 21:23									#91
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	28-05-2003 21:23									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

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?

	28-05-2003 21:29									#93
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	28-05-2003 21:51									#94
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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.

	28-05-2003 21:54									#95
	Increase Your PM Length

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.

	28-05-2003 21:57									#96
	Remove this text

Loin: If theyŽd 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 doesnŽt lead neccessarily to prison for all members.

	28-05-2003 22:00									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	28-05-2003 22:05									#98
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.

	28-05-2003 22:09									#99
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

IŽd 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.?

	28-05-2003 22:12									#100
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	28-05-2003 22:13									#101
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by BeBro IŽd 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.

	28-05-2003 22:14									#102
	Suffering from ads?

loinburger

	28-05-2003 22:18									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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 donŽt 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 arenŽt 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 wasnŽt enough to declare them illegal - in the end the cons were considered more heavier.

	28-05-2003 22:25									#104
	Got spare money?

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.

	28-05-2003 22:26									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	28-05-2003 22:26									#106
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

of course not.

silly question

	28-05-2003 22:35									#107
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's The fact that they can't means they don't.

Oh, Boddsies.... threadjack over

	29-05-2003 00:18									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	29-05-2003 00:47									#109
	Tired of ads?

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.

	29-05-2003 02:05									#110
	Got spare money?

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.

	29-05-2003 03:08									#111
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	29-05-2003 03:22									#112
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	29-05-2003 04:22									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	29-05-2003 04:27									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	29-05-2003 04:30									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	29-05-2003 04:31									#116
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	29-05-2003 05:33									#117
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	29-05-2003 05:35									#118
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	29-05-2003 06:10									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	29-05-2003 06:12									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.