The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

Blackout, Losty has hit on something very important:

No it does not make us more free. It makes us safer. There is a difference. We have to sacrifice some freedoms for safety, sacrificing those freedoms doesn't make us freer (is that a word?) it just gives us more security. That doesn't make it wrong it just means we have less freedoms in exchange for more safety. The trick is drawing the line in the right spot.

Where the line should be drawn depends on the liberty. Some liberties are not only necessary to democracy, but suppressing them allows more liberties to be taken more easily.

Suppressing theft or murder, or to be a little less inflammatory the right to drive a car on the left side of the road, does not make it easier to restrict other things. Nor does suppressing theft, murder, or the driving on the left make it particularly more difficult to discuss when we might allow murder, theft, or driving on the left. Suppressing free speech, the right to freedom of association, freedom to protest or the right to vote, on the other hand all make it harder for those who seek change to achieve it and easier for the government in power to restrict other freedoms. Therefore the line should be drawn closer to freedom in these cases even if there some risk of personal security.

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?