So do you really think the Nazi party can be rehabilitated? That it some how can transform itself into something that doesn't condone wholesale dispossession, torture and murder of people who don't meet their racial purity standards?

Well I'll tell you what Kissaki. If and when the nazis ever stop advocating these things then maybe, maybe, i'll accept their continued existence in human society. Until then I say we aggressively pursue and eradicate them wherever they surface.

This absolute understanding of free speech reminds me of another stupid debate that we have in Germany: people going into a terror camp in pakistan to get training for terrorist activities like building bombs, blowing trains up, or participating in jihad - could they be arrested for going there, or is it their freedom to go there and get that training, but should only be arrested if they actzally USE that training in practice? Is their motivation really still in doubt when they go there? Could one wish to get terror training for another, more peaceful purpose than doing terrorist stuff? Why do you think they try to get that training? Action holidays? Violent recreation?

Same goes for the abuse of free speech. when it is abused for directly or indirectly destroying free speech, or the constitutional order of the satate/the national community, or expresses sympathy to ideas aiming at that.

In crime movies we often follow the action with anger when we see how the victim tries to find help and protection from it'S murder, and the polcie says "sorry, as long as nothihng happened we cannot do anything for you." and when the victim finally is dead, then the police starts working. why do some of you guys not feel this kind of anger when people abuse free speech for the above mentioned purposes?

@ Kissaki, could it be that you try to relativise the evil in Nazism? You give me the strong impression that you try right this. Some ideologies are inhumane from A to Z. They are not sometimes better than at other times. They were inhumane in the past, they are inhumane in the rpesent, and they will be inhumane in the future to come.

In Russia they are currently relativising Stalin's horrifying death record.

The Chinese justify the massacre on the place of heavenly peace as püolitical reason.

In America they are building a mosque near Ground Zero.

In Africa they are ignoring the Islamic genocide in Darfhur .

In Iran they deny the holocaust and make mockery of it.

And so many other examples...


Wanna fall in line with that kind of doing? :hmmm:

True!
 

Yes, in this case, he fully deserved some sort of legal repercussion. I think three years is extreme, though, unless most of it is suspended. The reason this guy deserved it is because he wasn't simply voicing his opinion, he was disturbing the peace and instigating to whatever mayhem he could.[/QUOTE]

He problabley get,nothing for what he did,but in the end his behavior,tell people be more careful in the futher,

?:06:
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/a...e2affb7f4b.jpg

:har::har:

[QUOTE=August;1437097]Is the number growing?

consequence of the Fall of Man!
 

Yeshua is a requirement if hereditary sin is true,I say?

Who's talking about the Nazi party? We're talking about people, and their opinions. Do you really want a thought police?


And how would that not qualify as murder, of the exact same kind that Hitler and Stalin perpetrated? Are you a better person simply because it's not the same groups you are persecuting? You're advocating hunting down people for their opinions, ffs. If you were talking about punishing people for their actions I could agree with you. But as it stands, I cannot respect your position. But that doesn't mean I want to see you dead.

I'm not trying to defend Nazism in the slightest. But the whole point about freedom of speech is that we allow precisely those opinions which we do not like. It is no high mark to allow opinions you already tolerate. No society in the history of the world has ever done less.


They have done that since he was still alive and kicking.


This is nothing new, either.


They are building a cultural center which will include a mosque. Not quite the same thing. And it passed the vote with clear majority, so what's the problem?


I really don't see what relevance any of that has with what we are talking about. What you are doing here is fear-mongering, plain and simple. Basically what you are saying is that if we do not restrict freedom of speech - not in how it can be used, mind you, but in which people have a right to use it - bad things will happen. And as if to ram the point home, you caution that, "if you defend their rights, you must be one of them!" Something which does not make me particularly inclined to be swayed by your words.

It is not about banning an opinion that is just different to yours. It is not about disagreements on whether or not a bridge should be build, finacial polcies should be this or that, or the tatse of this or that icecream being better. It is about banning an opinion that expresses that it wants to destroy you, or is linked to something that wishes to do so. You could as well ask me to tolerate the other if he tries to murder me. Before I tolerate that, I would prefer to kill him before he has an opportunity to realise his intention regarding me. Tolerating Nazism or Islamic hate preaching means to tolerate the destruction of the constitutional democratic order as we know it today in western states. the German constitution has it very right: free thought and free opinion and free expression of such - yes to all that, but only as long as this does not call for or demands or assists in the destruction of this very constitutional order - the destruction of the constitution that right protects and guarantees free speech, free opinion and free expression.

Our freedom of speech must not tolerate and must find a limit when it comes to using free speech in order to destroy free speech.

do you know what happens to your maximum free speech if Nazism or islamic fundametalism takes over by being given the opportunity? The right of free speech is taken away from you. What do you do then? Speaking free and accept getting shot for it, or hanged, or spend lifetime terms in prison? At least your fantasy remains to be free - you can spend you years then by dreaming of having the right of free speech again thta before you have traded away so very carelessly. Sweet sweet dreams - lovely, isn't it.

there is a very nasty tendency in the modern West of trying to destroy itself and claiming that to be a sign of tolerance and freedom and cleverness. But the truth is: it just is a sign for existential boredom, stupidity, and impotence. we are so fat and tired and lazy and take freedom and peace so very much for granted, that now we are fed up with ourselves and have enough of ourselves and do not even see a need why we should need to want defdning ourselves. That is the best definition of dekadence I have ever heared - the unwillingness to even accept a reason why one may want to defend oneself.

The same problem it would be if a NSDAP eduaction centre would be opened near Auschwitz. You can include a public movie and a dance gym in it, and a comedy show and a stand with french fries and bratwurst, but still it would remain to be a problem if the ideology causing the massacre opens a representation near the graves of its victims.

A clear majority vote is just that: a majority vote. democracy has the problem that majority are only about quantity, but not quality. You could vote with a majority, and still vote for soemthing stupid, or bad.

I allways find it ironically amusing how the pope is driven arround in an armoured car and that churches have lightning rods.
A great deal of faith the clergy are displaying:roll:

can you be more
 

Clear in your statmebt,plz!

Interesting thread, but reading through it, I kept remembering this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkcP0olmQY

No, it's not about that. If someone utters that they want certain people dead, that is a threat, and threats of bodily harm are illegal. However, it is perfectly possible to be a nazi, voicing nazi views and not have or espouse views of anyone's destruction. Mostly they simply want "undesireables" out - which in my view is bad enough, whether such views are uttered from a nazi perspective or not. And it is true that such racist and xenophobic views can easily turn to threats of violence and actual violence, but until it does, you're walking on shaky ground if you want to gag them. Not just because it will give them a legitimate reason to protest (their rights to freedom of speech), but because you then can't claim any objective justification. Where would you draw the line?



Now you are moving way away from what we were discussing. We were discussing a person's rights to voice his opinion - NOT to make threats, and not to do it in the manner that the douchebag in the Hitlermobile did.


So people are not allowed to speak of the merits of a feudal society, for example? If they move to overthrow the government and install feudal rule, then yes, they should be stopped. But they should be allowed to believe that feudalism is the best thing since sliced bread if they want to, and should be allowed to say so.


Slippery slope fallacy.



There is every bit as much the trend for the exact opposite as well. You are hardly voicing a minority view yourself, you know.


What do you base this on? This sounds like very sketchy psychology.



This is exactly the sort of thing Godwin's law comments on. First of all, the NSDAP was a political party (now defunct), with socio-political ideals. Islam is a world religion, considering of several groupings. Al Qaeda is muslim, but Islam is not Al Qaeda. Now, if it was an Al Qaeda center being built the comparison would be valid. But as it is, no.



Absolutely, but who gets to decide what is and is not stupid? Are you willing to overthrow the democratic process whenever you decide the decision is "stupid"? If the vote had gone the other way, you would have smiled and said, "democracy in action". But democracy means that sometimes the vote goes against your grain. That's the price we have to pay for being allowed to vote ourselves.