The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Minimalist]

And nobody running the marketplace noticed it until the shit hit the fan?

Possible.

Unlikely.


Most likely some 20 year old who didn't have the foggiest idea what it meant or what it was. Such is the state of teaching history in the US.

[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.

Key words are "some" and "reasonable." I.e., who gets to decide which ideologies are a cause of danger, and what restrictions are reasonable. There are plenty of people on this very forum that think religion is dangerous, so I don't want them deciding. There are some theists that think atheism is dangerous, so atheists don't want those people deciding. In the end, everyone has biases, so we've decided it's safer for everyone to just allow it all.

In europe's case it was decided to be dangerous because atrocities were committed because of fascism, and fascism can't exist without destroying democracy while religion can exist in a democratic society.

---

Are you being serious? This is not idiocy, these ideologies are dangerous and can be propagated easily to volatile fragile influential minds. Why do you think former fascist countries made fascism and nazism illegal and invested so much on 300 articles constitutions with all rights described specifically? To prevent further disasters. Well some opinions are pure stupidity but there's a line between that and posing a danger. The proof of that is the rise of far right in europe, the so called nationalist parties that disguise themselves in cultural identities and nation values to hide their fascist heritage based on hate, racism and xenophobe, just check Marine Le Penn's comment comparing Muslims in france with Hitler's holocaust (it was funny but still highly racist) or her father making the anti-immigration comments advocating the death of all them trough the ebola virus

So we need a Bureau of Correct Opinion (or some other bureacracy to evaluate ideas and divide them into acceptable and unacceptable) to determine what ideologies American are allowed to hold? Do you really think that is the way to go?

I thought we had learned by now that some cures are worse than the disease they're supposed to fight.

I'm not american, but european. Indeed I understand your side, but you are never forbidden to be fascist, you just can't propagate it and create parties, the same goes with racism. I feel safe with this restrictions, and I'm not sure if they'll be enough to prevent fascism but are still a good mechanism...

No one really decided that fascism was dangerous, we just experienced it first hand and other non fascist states witnessed it and were affected or invaded during WWII, so the facts led us to make it illegal, just like fascist associations are illegal.

[John V]

In europe's case it was decided to be dangerous because atrocities were committed because of fascism, and fascism can't exist without destroying democracy while religion can exist in a democratic society.

Democratic societies have committed atrocities too. So, why are you allowed to talk about democratic societies but not fascism?

[Dystopia]

In europe's case it was decided to be dangerous because atrocities were committed because of fascism, and fascism can't exist without destroying democracy while religion can exist in a democratic society.

Democratic societies have committed atrocities too. So, why are you allowed to talk about democratic societies but not fascism?

Because fascism can't exist without taking away your rights, in fascism your rights are submitted to the well being of the national and you lose individual liberties, democracy can commit atrocities but it can work without doing so, and constitutions limit governments severely to prevent such events. Democracy is the only political regime that can work with people's rights, fascism, and authoritarianism, totalitarianism etc can't work without compressing or taking away your rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Democracy is the only political regime that can work with people's rights

-snipped for brevity-
Surely you don't mean this. Can I suggest that you meant that democracy, relative to fascism, etc........ is more compatible with peoples rights?

[Jackalope]

Democracy is the only political regime that can work with people's rights, fascism, and authoritarianism, totalitarianism etc can't work without compressing or taking away your rights.

And yet, in furthering your democratic interests, you're taking away people's rights to speak.

[Dystopia]

Democracy is the only political regime that can work with people's rights

-snipped for brevity-
Surely you don't mean this. Can I suggest that you meant that democracy, relative to fascism, etc........ is more compatible with peoples rights?

The only political regimes are democracy and dictatorships so yeah my point stands. At least here we define political regimes as those, the fundamental of society, and form of government can be a republic, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc.

It doesn't mean a dictatorship doesn't give some rights, but they are always more compressed.

---

Democracy is the only political regime that can work with people's rights, fascism, and authoritarianism, totalitarianism etc can't work without compressing or taking away your rights.

And yet, in furthering your democratic interests, you're taking away people's rights to speak.

Between the right to free speech and public security we prefer the later because it guarantees democracy's sustainability. How would you feel if you were a jew and someone made an anti Semitic protest humiliating your kind?

[John V]

Because fascism can't exist without taking away your rights, in fascism your rights are submitted to the well being of the national and you lose individual liberties,

Er, you've been arguing that individual liberties, such as freedom of speech and association, be taken away for the well being of the democratic society. You're pretty much saying, we can't let people talk about fascism, because fascism won't let people talk freely.

ETA: I see that CD beat me to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

How would you feel if you were a jew and someone made an anti Semitic protest humiliating your kind?

You mean, how would I feel, if, for example - there were billboards on every highway that likened me to murderers and rapists? Or threatened me with extreme bodily harm if I didn't stop being -like myself-. Or maybe if people marched up and down a street with signs expressing my wicked inequities? Howsabout some pro-9/11 posters, and lengthy diatribes about how much we deserved that?

I'd think they were morons, and I don't have to imagine it. But I appreciate them outing themselves as bigots and douchebags. Saves me the trouble.

In return, I get to say "thanks for sharing your opinion...and since we're sharing opinions......"

[Jenny A]

Between the right to free speech and public security we prefer the later because it guarantees democracy's sustainability.

The only public security limitation on our free speech has to do with outing government secrets you've sworn not to reveal.

How would you feel if you were a jew and someone made an anti Semitic protest humiliating your kind?

Substitute the word atheist or woman for the Jew, and I do have an inkling how it feels, though perhaps not with the same feeling of fear. But peoples' feelings aren't so important as freedom of speech. If you can't freely discuss, what you have isn't really a democracy because not all ideas can be considered by the people.

What is important is that the Constitution protects a number of rights from the government: free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from the establishment by government of religion, freedom of assembly, equal rights under the law regardless of race, sex, or religion. And yes those are all limits to democracy.

Feelings, we protect in more specific limited places. Make those same antisemitic comments in the workplace and you have the beginnings of a civil equal rights claim.