The You Can't Make This Shit Up Department

[Dystopia]

I don't understand how prohibiting can ever be more freedom than allowing. I'm not saying I disagree with prohibiting nazi propaganda. I'm not even offering an opinion on that. I'm just saying prohibiting it does not make you more free.

No? How about prohibiting murder? Doesn't it allow us more freedom, since others can't kill us without being punished? This is the thing, promoting fascism is a crime by itself... The problem is not expression of people who have been fascist since the regime fell in 1974, but if these ideas propagate in times of crisis, a lot of people might think they were great and started demanding a fascist regime, just like Hitler propagated his ideas well, Mussolini, Franco. And our population is largely dumb, ignorant or uneducated, so I wouldn't surprise myself if many of them accepted the idea that black people are inferior and gays should be executed..

[Losty]

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.

[Dystopia]

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.

Ok english is not my native, I actually meant security prevails over individual liberty... The line is well drawn for us, and for other european countries. And even so Neo-Fascism and Neo-Nazism exist, just look at Greece or Denmark's far right parties... They just undercover their fascism with a nationalist ideology based on democracy..

[Losty]

I almost always side with liberty over security. It's the American in me I guess. Some freedoms definitely have to be sacrificed for security though.

[Dystopia]

I almost always side with liberty over security. It's the American in me I guess. Some freedoms definitely have to be sacrificed for security though.

I think alike. But I don't mind some liberties being sacrificed exceptionally. Historical circumstances legitimate these restrictions frequently. For instance, in America I guess it is legit to make a protest to reapply slavery, here it wouldn't be because slavery is against human dignity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Still wanting to know why is this even legal, I know this sounds authoritarian but dangerous ideologies and political orientations based on racism, xenophobia, segregation, discrimination and unfounded elitism should be made illegal to propagate and constituting parties should be illegal too.

Because suppressing those ideologies drives them underground, while addressing them in the marketplace of ideas lets everyone see exactly how wrong they are.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", and so on.

Besides, by outlawing this stuff, you make it impossible to see the dumbfucks quickly. 'Tis better to have them announcing themselves, it seems to me.

---

Oh and read the whole argument, because we see the propaganda itself as a bad-doing, not as a potential, we see it as harmful in it's essence, it doesn't matter if other results come as a consequence, the act of propagating itself is already considered harmful and a crime.

The idea that what you say harms me in the absence of action on your part is highly debateable.

I pprefer freedom of thought and trust myself to winnow out the assholes, rather than trusting the government to not abuse such sweeping authority.

[Dystopia]

Because suppressing those ideologies drives them underground, while addressing them in the marketplace of ideas lets everyone see exactly how wrong they are.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant", and so on.

Besides, by outlawing this stuff, you make it impossible to see the dumbfucks quickly. 'Tis better to have them announcing themselves, it seems to me.

What if I told you that there are people from the old regime that still like fascism, and letting these ideas be promoted freely could drive the majority of the population in support of fascism? Better not take chances. They can be underground and discuss their ideas all they want, but they won't have a chance doing it publicly. Sure you have a point when you say we could expose the dumbfucks, but what if our (ignorant) population liked these dumbfucks? What would we do now?

The idea that what you say harms me in the absence of action on your part is highly debateable.

I pprefer freedom of thought and trust myself to winnow out the assholes, rather than trusting the government to not abuse such sweeping authority.

It's your opinion... By the way, freedom of thought is absolute, my professor said well that we could all be fascists on the inside, we can even declare we are fascists in public, we simply can't promote by showing a positive side of it, I'd rather have things like this. And about the absence of action, promoting something is an action, the action of promoting. Absence of action being punishable would be if someone was sentenced to jail for being merely a fascist, only with an action can you get punished, that's the most basic requirement of the system, and propaganda is an action, whether it is trough speech, headlines or papers. This is not the only promotion crime, there is also crimes of promotion of suicide, promotion of murder (telling people to murder others), promotion of hatred against races (saying people blacks are inferior and incentive of violence)

You can think individual liberties should prevail all day long, but if you talked with someone who was arrested and tortured for being a protester against the fascist regime, they'd tell you clearly this prohibition is a requirement. Let alone the German case of nazism they took it very far indeed, maybe too far.

[Jenny A]

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.

[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?

[Jenny A]

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.