(July 12, 2014 at 10:49 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 12, 2014 at 10:07 am)Blackout Wrote: There is something I've explained to you and you still haven't understood... It's legally impossible for the government to restrict inhumanely our freedoms. You are suggesting that if the government bans freedom of association regarding fascism (and nazism, racism) that would legitimate further restrictions... I'll give you two reasons why this doesn't work 1 - It was been like this since 1974 and our government hasn't restricted any kind of associative freedom significantly, unless in extreme cases where a higher good was at stake 2 - Our constitution has limits that don't allow the government to limit our rights. I'll show you our article about restrictions, here it is:
"Article 18 (Legal force):
1. This Constitution’s provisions with regard to rights, freedoms and guarantees shall be
directly applicable to and binding on public and private persons and bodies.

2. The law may only restrict rights, freedoms and guarantees in cases expressly
provided for in this Constitution, and such restrictions shall be limited to those needed
to safeguard other rights and interests protected by this constitution.

3. Laws that restrict rights, freedoms and guarantees shall possess an abstract and
general nature and shall not possess a retroactive effect or reduce the extent or scope of
the essential content of the provisions of this Constitution."~

Regarding number 2 - It justifies restricting fascism because we safeguard rights and interests protected in the constitution, such as human dignity (the core value)
Regarding number 3 - It says clearly that the essential principles must never be put aside, those principles are very well defined in the first article, there's no way to counter this (the government) without going explicitly against our constitution. Do you still think my government can randomly restrict freedoms? All States who suppressed fascism have similar articles to avoid the slippery slope case, it's childish to think we wouldn't have though of that and made something to avoid it... The core value is Human Dignity, and all that goes against it is not allowed. Fascism promotes inhuman dignity, therefore the government doesn't want it being spread. There is no slippery slope. And by the way, it's not only a problem of our States, but the EU (they can make laws that apply to States) has also forbidden it at least implicitly, so no State in the EU can be fascist. I'm not sure if that would lead to expulsion or maybe a military intervention, who knows?

I understand the fear of fascism. Natzis are to this day a kind of boogieman in our movies and popular culture. There are a ton of movies and books that run on a what if Germany had won the war, or Cuba had invaded and won theme. They answer is always distopian. Despite the fact that it didn't happen here, we have a holocaust museum in D.C. But our real fear isn't fascism in particular, but rather any kind of totalitarian government or any dictatorship whatever it happens to call itself.

But I do get what you, have said above. I understand that fascism is the particular dog that bit you (and much of Europe). Your constitution says you can only restrict speech and freedom of association in matters concerning the topic of fascism for that reason. You've tried to limit that restriction very carefully to fascism. I get it.

But I would still draw the line very differently. I have a fundamental distrust of making certain subjects of speech illegal. And should your government find itself dealing with unrest, I can easily imagine fascism suddenly defined very broadly.

The difference between us comes down to this: When considering how to prevent totalitarianism I look to limiting government and restricting the amount of power in the hands of any one person or group of persons. You appear to look to suppressing agitation or talk in favor of totalitarianism. I think limiting the power of the government accomplishes the same goal (and probably does it better) with much less restriction on personal liberty.

I don't think so. The problem is europe still has a big nazi heritage, people underground that share the ideals of nazism and fascism... You have a very good point and I'm happy it works for americans, but if someone uses freedom of speech to promote violent ideologies, and people start committing crimes against certain classes of people because they believe those ideologies and are influenced by fascists propaganda, who would we blame? The government for allowing promotion of such behavior. Fascism arose always because the masses believed them and and wanted them in power, we want to prevent that, younger people and people who didn't live in fascism era (my age and older) don't know how easily fascism can spread during a crisis, populism is very easy to use.


Of course if no one promoted it that would be better, without need for any laws, but I prefer banning promotion of anything that goes against human rights, that includes ideologies that take people's rights and promote inequality.

On the other hand Jenny A, european constitutions have large and I mean LARGE lists of rights to ensure people don't lose them. I'll give you an example that the US doesn't have - Here, and in other european countries, the death penalty is prohibited by the constitution, mainly for humanist reasons AND to ensure the states doesn't use capital punishment as a form of oppressing people.

The Grand Duchy of Tuscany abolished the death penalty in 1786. The Europeans have been at it a long time.

Perhaps some day the US will finally mature....although I have no hope for Texas.

(July 12, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Grand Duchy of Tuscany abolished the death penalty in 1786. The Europeans have been at it a long time.

Perhaps some day the US will finally mature....although I have no hope for Texas.

Wouldn't an amendment banning it be enough?

(July 12, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 12, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The Grand Duchy of Tuscany abolished the death penalty in 1786. The Europeans have been at it a long time.

Perhaps some day the US will finally mature....although I have no hope for Texas.

Wouldn't an amendment banning it be enough?

Yes. The Texas part is a joke.

(July 12, 2014 at 3:31 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 12, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Blackout Wrote: Wouldn't an amendment banning it be enough?

Yes. The Texas part is a joke.

I've done my research and critical thinking, I've concluded capital punishment is neither acceptable nor effective as crime deterrent, therefore my only choice is to manifest against it. But I'll admit some States might have so high crime rates that the death penalty is a necessity.

Crime rates have nothing to do with it. Capital punishment is not a deterrent...certainly not the way we do it. Criminals never think they will be caught and most murders are not planned anyway with the idea of avoiding capture.

There are some crimes which are so heinous that frying the perp seems the only answer...the Boston Bomber comes to mind...but other than that.......

(July 12, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Crime rates have nothing to do with it. Capital punishment is not a deterrent...certainly not the way we do it. Criminals never think they will be caught and most murders are not planned anyway with the idea of avoiding capture.

There are some crimes which are so heinous that frying the perp seems the only answer...the Boston Bomber comes to mind...but other than that.......

Yes I do know that, I like practical solutions, a sentence that will fail to deter crime is useless, it's probably the biggest reason I oppose the death penalty.

I don't know who the Boston bomber is, I'm guessing it was a serious crime that shocked everybody, but still I'll stick to the saying that an exceptional case doesn't justify breaking the general rule entirely

Oh and when I talked about the necessity for some countries to execute criminals, it isn't meant to deter crime, but more like overpopulation of jails and lots of criminals continue their work on the inside. Take the example of Brazil, using the death penalty for 2 or 3 years could help them, but of course it would violate human rights and the brazilian constitution

He and his brother set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon as a terrorist act. They were two muslim fuckwits and at least his brother got killed in a shootout with the cops.

This fuckhead was captured. There is no doubt about his guilt or his motives.

Fuck him.

(July 12, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote: He and his brother set off a bomb at the Boston Marathon as a terrorist act. They were two muslim fuckwits and at least his brother got killed in a shootout with the cops.

This fuckhead was captured. There is no doubt about his guilt or his motives.

Fuck him.

After reading 'set off a bomb' I wasn't surprised they were muslims. Maybe it's just prejudice but fuck muslims

(July 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 12, 2014 at 3:31 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yes. The Texas part is a joke.

I've done my research and critical thinking, I've concluded capital punishment is neither acceptable nor effective as crime deterrent, therefore my only choice is to manifest against it. But I'll admit some States might have so high crime rates that the death penalty is a necessity.

The death penalty is never a necessity and I don't think it lowers crime rates at all.