The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Minimalist]

Still wanting to know why is this even legal,

What country are you in?

Here, we have this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Dystopia]

[But some ideologies are a cause of danger as you said it. I guess it is hard for americans to understand some restrictions of freedom too, but this is how I see things. Sometimes too much freedom can be bad for you. And by making a reasonable interpretation of that article and conjugating it with other articles regarding let's say democracy and other important traits like freedom we could conclude some restrictions are allowed to preserve the common good. Nazism threats freedom and democracy (because duh it's fascism) and is based on racism, if racism is a crime you shouldn't be allowed to propagate ideologies based on race superiority or any other ideology based on explicit unfounded discrimination, this is how it works. I guess america doesn't have the need to such regulations because they never had fascism (real fascism not oligarchies) in their country.

I understand, especially considering your country's history. But we are a nation founded to a certain extent on mistrusting governmental power. The Constitution is largely about limiting both the power of the government and how much power can be held by any one branch of government. One of the things we mistrust the government to decide is what kind of political speech is dangerous.

When we've had regulation of speech by the government, such as during the McCarty communist scare, the results have been some of our ugliest moments.

The thing is controlling fascism IS controlling the government and limiting it. Why? Because fascism advocates a regime of 'all for the nation, none against the nation', your interests are submitted to the nation's interest and you lose your rights, the government controls everything from schools to the media and they control who works and how much you produce... Basically in fascism there is a lot of government control and planning, therefore preventing fascism is preventing government planning, it's precisely because we don't trust governments that once appeared nice that we limited fascism, if fascism reached power the same story would repeat again.

I'm curious to ask something, is your two party system based solely on two parties, or are there actually other minor parties that no one votes in? Your system seems similar to the british bipartidary system, I enjoyed studying the american system in constitutional law classes and political science.

---

Still wanting to know why is this even legal,

What country are you in?

Here, we have this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Again read my interpretation of your amendment. Don't forget that there are laws and articles but they are interpreted considering the whole context... Just because there is free speech it doesn't mean it can't get restricted if threatens a common good, national security, promotes going against constitutional values or human rights... Using your amendment to advocate fascist propaganda is just as valid as me using my 'Everybody shall have shelter' article to demand a house from the government despite refusing to work...

But I guess americans see this on a different perspective, if you had a fascist regime you wouldn't take it so lightly. It's always nice to give everyone free speech, but if someone advocates an ideology that is based on something illegal (like racism) then freedom of speech should be restricted.

A wise professor of mine said 'No right is absolute, not even the right to live'. If you use your rights to threaten the safety of others you should be restricted. Of course a small fascist protest won't harm anyone, but what if it starts growing? Fascism always started behind the curtains and everyone always thought 'those guys will never win the elections', Mussolini proved them wrong.

[Jenny A]

The thing is controlling fascism IS controlling the government and limiting it. Why? Because fascism advocates a regime of 'all for the nation, none against the nation', your interests are submitted to the nation's interest and you lose your rights, the government controls everything from schools to the media and they control who works and how much you produce... Basically in fascism there is a lot of government control and planning, therefore preventing fascism is preventing government planning, it's precisely because we don't trust governments that once appeared nice that we limited fascism, if fascism reached power the same story would repeat again.

Theoretically, our current system of government with checks and balances makes such a regime impossible, but don't ask me about it in the wee hours of the morning.

I'm curious to ask something, is your two party system based solely on two parties, or are there actually other minor parties that no one votes in?

No, there are other political parties and here and there they hold an elected office or two. And we've changed which two are prominent from time to time. Lincoln was a Republican which was a relatively new party at the time he was elected.

Your system seems similar to the british bipartidary system

No, not really. The British have a parliamentary system in which parliament is ultimately in control as it elects the Prime Minister and can oust him at anytime, abet at the price of immediate general election. All members of parliament are elected at once.

We have two independent legislative houses, neither of which elects the president, who may be and often is of a different party than the majority in one or both houses. Both houses are required to pass legislation. Absent impeachment and a trial the legislature cannot oust the president. It's been tried twice, but we've never removed a sitting president by impeachment, though Nixon resigned in the face of it.

Further our elections of house and senate members are staggered so only a few legislators are up for election in any election year.

[Dystopia]

The thing is controlling fascism IS controlling the government and limiting it. Why? Because fascism advocates a regime of 'all for the nation, none against the nation', your interests are submitted to the nation's interest and you lose your rights, the government controls everything from schools to the media and they control who works and how much you produce... Basically in fascism there is a lot of government control and planning, therefore preventing fascism is preventing government planning, it's precisely because we don't trust governments that once appeared nice that we limited fascism, if fascism reached power the same story would repeat again.

Theoretically, our current system of government with checks and balances makes such a regime impossible, but don't ask me about it in the wee hours of the morning.

I'm curious to ask something, is your two party system based solely on two parties, or are there actually other minor parties that no one votes in?

No, there are other political parties and here and there they hold an elected office or two. And we've changed which two are prominent from time to time. Lincoln was a Republican which was a relatively new party at the time he was elected.

Your system seems similar to the british bipartidary system

No, not really. The British have a parliamentary system in which parliament is ultimately in control as it elects the Prime Minister and can oust him at anytime. That leads to one party control.

We have two independent legislative houses, neither of which elects the president, who may be and often is of a different party than the majority in one or both houses. Both houses are required to pass legislation. Absent impeachment and a trial the legislature cannot oust the president. It's been tried twice, but we've never removed a sitting president, though Nixon resigned.

Further our elections of house and senate members are staggered so only a few legislators are up for election in any election year.

I know about the Senate and Congress, I was just pointing out a similarity between the bipartidary system. The british have a parliamentary system and the chief of state (the queen) has zero political power. Your system is a presidentialist one, but isn't impeachment process enough to remove the president?

[Jenny A]

Your system is a presidentialist one, but isn't impeachment process enough to remove the president?

It is, but it's designed to be very difficult and requires presidential crimes, not just political discontent. We've only had impeachment proceedings twice. Neither time was the president removed from office.

Nixon saw the writing on the wall and resigned.

[Minimalist]

Just because there is free speech it doesn't mean it can't get restricted if threatens a common good,

This is still the determining case on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1] Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

[Dystopia]

Just because there is free speech it doesn't mean it can't get restricted if threatens a common good,

This is still the determining case on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1] Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

There is no point in arguing this divergence between europe in the US. Another difference, you have those determining cases that solve similar cases for the future and pretty much have an 'executive' or 'legislative/legal' force, while here a decision by a court only has effect on the case sentenced, all other similar cases can be decided differently as long as the interpretation can still fit the law. Unless it's our constitutional court forbidding a law because it goes against the constitution, but those are extreme cases, and have been happening frequently

[Jenny A]

Another difference, you have those determining cases that solve similar cases for the future and pretty much have an 'executive' or 'legislative/legal' force, while here a decision by a court only has effect on the case sentenced, all other similar cases can be decided differently as long as the interpretation can still fit the law. Unless it's our constitutional court forbidding a law because it goes against the constitution, but those are extreme cases, and have been happening frequently

Ah that's the common law system we inherited from the British. They too have case law. I think, but maybe someone else from the relevant countries can confirm this, that Canada, Australia, India, and other countries once held by the British have case law based upon precedent too.

I'm grateful to the British for inventing it too. The law ought to be applied to everyone in the same way under the same circumstances.

You might be interested to know that in vast areas of civil tort law there is hardly any legislative law at all. It's all court case law.

[Dystopia]

Another difference, you have those determining cases that solve similar cases for the future and pretty much have an 'executive' or 'legislative/legal' force, while here a decision by a court only has effect on the case sentenced, all other similar cases can be decided differently as long as the interpretation can still fit the law. Unless it's our constitutional court forbidding a law because it goes against the constitution, but those are extreme cases, and have been happening frequently

Ah that's the common law system we inherited from the British. They too have case law. I think, but maybe someone else from the relevant countries can confirm this, that Canada, Australia, India, and other countries once held by the British have case law based upon precedent too.

I'm grateful to the British for inventing it too. The law ought to be applied to everyone in the same way under the same circumstances.

You might be interested to know that in vast areas of civil tort law there is hardly any legislative law at all. It's all court case law.

Yes I studied the systems of law around the world, the most common ones are the commonlaw from the british (with the countries you mentioned) and the Roman Germanic system, the one we use inherited by the Romans, as is also used by most european countries, we have a different approach of laws, there is almost and overdose of legislation and everything is constantly regulated in very specific terms, there are many laws coming out repealing former laws, courts have the power to decide on the concrete case but they can't impose the decision on other situations, we use the motto that even apparently equal situations can be unequal at some point and it's best to play safe than sorry.

To give you an idea, our civil law, that regulates private relationships between individuals, like contracts, property, family (marriage, parents and kids relations and paternal power etc), successions/heritages and property, is composed by a code that has nothing less than about 2400 articles, and at least 50 laws out of the book to fill in the blanks left by the law. This is what I study to pass one semester class, even lawyers have a hard time knowing all laws.

[Minimalist]

This is what I study to pass one semester class, even lawyers have a hard time knowing all laws.

Imagine if you had to study all the cases prior to your bar exam?

Bravo, Jenny. Spot on with the Common Law stuff.