The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

If I were you I'd move, because ideology doesn't bow to laws. Personally, I think those ideas are so hoary that they are easily dispatched in the discussion they'd certainly arouse. And if they have the critical mass to silence such a discussion, you'd best move.

However, the idea that restricting a polity's speech is an expansion of their freedom is silly.

Firstly, there is some heritage, but the majority of the population isn't fascist. Secondly, the purpose is to make security prevail. Dispatched? Do you really think so? Have you heard of populism? It tends to work during crisis. If propagated correctly, fascism could (even using another definition to put aside the prejudice associated with the word 'fascism') influence a large majority of the population. I'd like to see if americans started liking dictatorship ideals thanks to propaganda, destroyed the government trough revolution and made an authoritarian constitution. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it... The problem here is not only the government, but the people, usually fascists are common people that start rising while spreading ideas.

I think the greater good is served by allowing freedom of speech. I don't see point out the positives that may have arisen from a system as "promoting" it, insofar as its negatives are also discussed. In the case of fascism, the positives (higher employment by improved infrastructure and defense spending, mainly) are so obviously outweighed by its negatives (loss of freedom, and perhaps even life) that such a discussion would have a deep effect on waverers. The diehards will not change their minds, sure, but by not vocally demostrating their fallacies, you leave the public unequipped to reply to them.

You'd be surprised by the amount of people I could convince that fascism is a good idea, and I'm not a fascist. It's extremely easy. The idea is to avoid propagating ideas so that less people become fascist. In america it works better because of territorial dimensions. I live in a country that is probably smaller than New York, it's too easy for such ideas to spread vigorously. We had a party called the national front, they were nationalists but not fascists, or at least they said... The party was made illegal after.. Why? Because their members were jailed, accused of murders and other violent crimes against gays and black people, drug trafficking, sexual exploitation, they were members of nazi brotherhoods all over europe, and of course with all members arrested the party had to end. And I will repeat something you may have not read, this isn't solely a national prohibition, it's implicit in the EU policies, the EU doesn't like fascism (even though I sometimes suspect they are fascists of some kind), the EU likes democracy and human rights, any EU member that allowed fascism would have to restrict it or they would bail out immediately

Your unquestioned premise seems to be that discussing fascism is promoting it. I think that premise will not withstand questioning; we discuss Christianity constantly without promoting it, here.

Discussing fascism is not promoting, you are free to discuss fascism, did you even read the argument? Propagating actively is punished, not debating it or talking about it

If those crimes such as inciting to murder and other violence are committed, they are already prosecutable. Banning speech simply because the speaker is a fascist and wishes to promote his political system is not an expansion of freedom; it is a reduction of it.

It's reduction for the common good. And the main focus is not about free speech, but prohibiting fascist parties and associations (and racists, nazis). I never say there wasn't a reduction, but if we felt all rights unrestricted there would be immeasurable collisions and conflicts

I lived in Iran for four years under the authoritarian regime of the Shah Reza Pahlevi, and I witnessed first-hand its repressions of the Iranian people. I find the idea of destroying freedoms in order to defend freedom to be laughably short-sighted, because once you have established the principle that freedoms can be abrogated for the "right" reasons, the only thing left is determining who gets to decide what is right. Trusting the government to not abuse that power is to me naive in the extreme, given the fact that governments have a tendency to abuse any power they may have.

Damn, you really didn't read the argument did you? Please go read the article 18 I presented from my constitution, that clearly stops the government from taking away our rights, restrictions are allowed exceptionally if they threaten a common good. And what's right is defined in my constitution, it's not up to the government to decide, if they disrespect the constitution, they can be fired by the president. The constitution is clear in it's exceptions, the prohibitions I mentioned being some of them, and is also clear that human/fundamental rights must never be taken away, and there are no restriction to those, so your argument to 'not trust my government' largely fails. And it's truly naive of you to make your point without reading the restrictions and guarantees constitutions in europe have. Do you really think europeans were dumb enough to not predict slippery slope? Of course they weren't, we have rights to protects us from exaggerated restrictions.

I will repeat this, the emphasis is not on restricting a specific right, but on banning anything that promotes going against human dignity. Human dignity is clearly defined in the constitution and those articles are unchangeable by revision. So there is no way for the government to turn things against us, we thought very well on how to deal with this. If the constitution praises human dignity, there is no reason to allow people to promote behavior that is against the most basic constitutional principles. And the constitution is not subjective to acceptance, you may disagree with it's content, I partially disagree with some things, but you have to accept it as a fundamental law.

Your opinion is, to me, unconvincing. You would not want anyone telling you what you could and could not espouse. You should extend that same respect to even those with whom you disagree.

I tolerate people thinking differently, I don't tolerate them promoting violence, against me or other people. Tolerating the intolerant could lead to an intolerant society that doesn't tolerate the tolerant. Think about it

As far as the NaZi regime, they certainly took it too far. One of the ways they managed to do that is by outlawing speech they found uncomfortable. Another example, from the other end of the spectrum, would be Stalinist Communism. Both systems stand as warning signs to citizens, that they abandon their essential freedoms at their own risk.

Misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the nazi regime, but about German's restrictions after WW2, they consider human dignity sacred. They went as far as banning a laser tag game for simulating murder, something I consider too much