What makes a country free?

[Dark Sage]

Ben Franklin's old adage "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" is a false statement because in order for a society to exist, one must give up some of one's freedoms. I like Ben Franklin, but that quote is just wrong.

That said, freedom of speech is a pretty complex subject and it's difficult to know when to draw the line. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal due to safety concerns, but it's an inhibition of freedom of speech. Of course the reason this is done is for safety since yelling fire can directly put people's lives at risk due to the stampede that will inevitably follow.

Restricting hate speech is a thornier issue. Contrary to BRS's initial post in this thread, most Americans with half a brain do understand the concept of hate speech laws, which is to combat prejudice and protect the rights and liberties of disenfranchised minority groups. Pretty much everyone who's not a bigot agrees that the intent behind hate speech laws is admirable and good. You can also use the same reasoning of the yelling fire thing to support hate speech laws too. Hate speech though doesn't correlate with the threat of someone's safety the way yelling fire does; A bigot may indeed want black people dead and may try to kill one himself for example, but another may not be as extreme (read: not murderous). Hate speech laws don't remove prejudice, it just makes it less apparent; bigots are still going to feel the same way. Plus if they do commit a crime against a minority, the crime is still punishable by law, regardless of the existence of hate speech laws.

It's a slippery slope to restrict speech due to "dangerous ideas" since each person has their own interpretation of danger, as well as right and wrong and in the worst case scenario, those in power could use that reasoning to silence their enemies.

If someone expresses an bigoted, awful opinion, then fair enough but he has to deal with me and other people telling him that his opinion sucks and he's an awful person for having it. To me, people should have the right to say what they want, even if they express an opinion that is abhorrent. It's like the old saying: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

(also since the topic of nazis and politics came up, it's worth noting that Japan does have a nazi party. It's known as The National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party (or NSJAP) but they are indeed neo nazis and I'm pretty sure they're a very small minority (it's hard to find much information on them fsr))

top-notch job at being a troll. you had me going there for a sec, man.

dude i know this guy a lot better than you do

he's not trolling in the slightest.

"I think a lot of the American posters in this thread can't comprehend the concept of hate speech laws"

I am pretty sure the implication is that American posters here lack the ability to understand hate speech laws.

American posters except him obviously

[Phoenix Wright]

Ben Franklin's old adage "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" is a false statement because in order for a society to exist, one must give up some of one's freedoms. I like Ben Franklin, but that quote is just wrong.

That's not the old adage. The old adage is, "Those who would give essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Much more powerful, in my opinion.

Not to mention the saying shouldn't be taken that literally anyhow.

dude i know this guy a lot better than you do

he's not trolling in the slightest.

I said that because I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now I know he's just being a jagoff.

[Espinosa]

I just found this thread again in my history and the thread right below provides an enlightening answer to this dilemma:

What makes a country free?

Nerfing mounts.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Espinosa

[Anouleth]

Let me raise a hypothetical: would it be morally acceptable to let Neo-Nazis run for public office, if the election was carefully rigged to prevent any possibility of them winning (their votes will be thrown away), and the government added the identities of people voting for them to a watchlist to be forwarded to the NSA? I think this is a compromise solution that everyone can be happy with, except Neo-Nazis, obviously, but we just won't tell them.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Anouleth

[Constable Reggie]

The NSA already watchlisted every american so no point there

And no, that'd be immensely stupid. It goes against everything the US was intended to be. Not to mention that allowing something like that could be extremely abusable.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Espinosa]

You're already doing that though, including outside your own country.

Anyway, the neo-nazis are the most stigmatised group politically ('nazi' is such a trite insult to throw around mindlessly) since we bring them up so often, but how about all those other poltiical unions that one may deem harmful (communism was a long-term hysteria during the Cold War and still is one somewhat)? You'll have a different list depending on whom you ask, too. Maybe you'll be the one whom the population deems unworthy of having a public voice.

'Preventive actions' is a pretty good method of manipulation. Just silence the opposition in the name of the next newspeak buzzword (democracy, fraternity, whatever else) and the decision will be celebrated.

[Phoenix Wright]

I just found this thread again in my history and the thread right below provides an enlightening answer to this dilemma:

What makes a country free?

Nerfing mounts.

having trouble connecting the dots, brah.

Let me raise a hypothetical: would it be morally acceptable to let Neo-Nazis run for public office, if the election was carefully rigged to prevent any possibility of them winning (their votes will be thrown away), and the government added the identities of people voting for them to a watchlist to be forwarded to the NSA? I think this is a compromise solution that everyone can be happy with, except Neo-Nazis, obviously, but we just won't tell them.

Uh...no.

[Anouleth]

The NSA already watchlisted every american so no point there

Ah, they have a head start on me, then! They sure are vigilant about protecting your Freedom, eh?

And no, that'd be immensely stupid. It goes against everything the US was intended to be.

The US was not intended to be a nazi dictatorship, either. How can you justify letting the Nazis take over the US? Whose side are you really on?

Not to mention that allowing something like that could be extremely abusable.

I'm sure that the government can be trusted 100% to probably use this kind of power in a responsible manner.

[Phoenix Wright]

Anouleth, you're starting to strike me as someone who's Anti-American. You hate America, son? Do ya?

[Samias]

There is no such thing as a truly free country. Your freedom ends where laws say it ends. Your freedom to do as you please cannot hamper someone else's right to exist, which is why as a society we cannot kill a neo-nazi for existing, just like we cannot follow their ideology to remove all non-whites from the face of the earth and practice eugenics. At a basic human rights level worldwide, we never endorse genocide, which is why we stifle the visibility of groups who historically support the death of "undesireables". In a "free" country, your right to expression is limited by the comfort level of the people around you, but generally you can say whatever you want within the confines of the law. You are freely allowed to criticize the government's decision making. If a bill is passed, you can say "I don't like it." If you feel a bill violates your basic rights/the Amendments/Charter of Rights and Freedoms, you have the right to protest and maybe even take it to court to have it repealed. Calling someone out as a "dirty *insert racial slur here*" to their face over and over constitutes harassment and is punishable by law.

You're never going to stamp out racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other types of mass hatred. Even in some of the most heavily censored places on Earth, whatever is banned will leak through. The government has no mandate to shut down sites that aren't openly calling for violence against certain minority groups. However, free speech does not protect threats to people's safety, and for the better interest of us all, the media censors calls to violence against any group.

[Anouleth]

Anouleth, you're starting to strike me as someone who's Anti-American. You hate America, son? Do ya?

No, I don't. But I do think that you shouldn't elect any Nazis to public office. if that means that I hate America, then so be it.

[Constable Reggie]

The US was not intended to be a nazi dictatorship, either. How can you justify letting the Nazis take over the US? Whose side are you really on?

Blast, you uncovered my true sentiment, for I am actually the most neo-nazist neo-nazi of them all. Down with the french!

I'm sure that the government can be trusted 100% to probably use this kind of power in a responsible manner.

Knowing our current government's executive state, they'd probably reinterpret "discount neo-nazi votes" into "discount everyone except the president's party's votes, also the president now has infinite terms" and get a secret rubber stamp court to say that it's totally legal.

[Nobody]

Why are some of you guys so defensive? It gets hard to have a serious discussion that way.

I'm not being defensive. I'm being extremely aggressive, in fact.

You're not the one i'm talking about.

Blast, you uncovered my true sentiment, for I am actually the most neo-nazist neo-nazi of them all. Down with the french!

That's what I'm talking about.

Btw about your (Anouleth) nazi election question, I don't think the government should be able to do that. Nazi parties IMO should be totally forbidden from politics, but since the government is letting people to vote for them, they can't punish people for doing that. Obviously, I think people shouldn't be allowed to vote for them in first place, but that would be like the government recognizing drug dealers as a legal profession, after a month banning it and then trying to arrest the people that were drug dealers when it was legalized. Unconstitutional.

It's called sarcasm, bro. I wouldn't call that 'getting defensive'.

Sarcasm is a way of getting defensive. And that form of sarcasm don't seems to fit this subforum IMO.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Nobody

[Anouleth]

Why are some of you guys so defensive? It gets hard to have a serious discussion that way.

I'm not being defensive. I'm being extremely aggressive, in fact.

[Tryhard]

That's what I'm talking about.

It's called sarcasm, bro. I wouldn't call that 'getting defensive'.

[Phoenix Wright]

No, I don't. But I do think that you shouldn't elect any Nazis to public office. if that means that I hate America, then so be it.

You don't like America, then you can just git out.

Why are some of you guys so defensive? It gets hard to have a serious discussion that way.

Earlier you stated that these groups can say whatever they like, it's only when they attempt to take the rights of others that there exists an issue. Though I disagree with that sentiment when it comes to violent criminals (I don't think they should have the right to arm themselves), and possibly other instances that aren't coming to mind at the moment, I agree with virtually any other circumstance. I believe you had the same feelings? I don't think hateful groups should rise to power, I don't think groups rallying for the implementation of Sharia law or Judeo-Christian morals should either. But they have a right to try, through political means.

As far as I know, you and I have finished our discussion, right? You were the only person I was speaking to (besides that ultra-enlightened dude that understands astronomically complex ideas like hate speech laws). Now it's time to laugh a little.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Constable Reggie]

Sarcasm is a way of getting defensive. And that form of sarcasm don't seems to fit this subforum IMO.

Rofl I wasn't being defensive, the question was so exaggerated to the point of being comical that I had fun with it. Not sure how you took it as defensive.

If you want a real answer, then no, I obviously don't side with neonazis in any of their fucked up beliefs, but I don't think we should ban them in a duplicitous manner.

[Dark Sage]

Why is everyone so concerned about nazis coming into power? Pretty much no one likes nazis and even in places where nazism is more tolerated, it still has a very weak (at best) effect on politics. I know it's an example but c'mon you guys.

Also

anouleth: master contrarian troll

[Phoenix Wright]

we aren't. it's just the go-to example because it's the worst thing we can think of whilst still proving the point we want to prove.

i mean, i suppose we could think of a hypothetical example too. i don't want the "Cannibalize Babies United" party to come into power either, but again, they'd have a right to try.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Espinosa]

Fascism is a term of the past. To add to the fact that there's nothing to refer with it anymore, the metaphor is laughable when the typical usage for the term is 'mum stop being so fascist can't you see I want to spend some time out tonight'. Sure, ultranationalistic parties will keep coming to power in today's socio-economical situation (Hungary and Greece are pretty much going there right now), but nationalism is a slightly older phenomenon (Lord Byron's era?).

having trouble connecting the dots, brah.

Fire Emblem. It's a game series.

[Chiki]

The NSA already watchlisted every american so no point there

And no, that'd be immensely stupid. It goes against everything the US was intended to be. Not to mention that allowing something like that could be extremely abusable.

Funnily enough, what you think is "going against everything the US was intended to be" is actually a constitutional right. It's funny how little Americans know about their own country.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.749cabd81f5ffc8fba713d10526e0aa0/?vgnextoid=39d2df6bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=39d2df6bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Right to run for elected office.

Obviously Neo Nazis have the legal right to run for office.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Chiki

[Phoenix Wright]

that's not what he was calling into question. he was talking about the rigging of an election.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Nobody]

Funnily enough, what you think is "going against everything the US was intended to be" is actually a constitutional right. It's funny how little Americans know about their own country.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.749cabd81f5ffc8fba713d10526e0aa0/?vgnextoid=39d2df6bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=39d2df6bdd42a210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

You misread his post, Chiki. He's saying that using their vote to put then in a watch list is wrong. Unless you're saying the government has the right to do that right now, which I don't know (but doubt), since I'm not american.

Okay, but there's still some people who think Neo Nazis shouldn't be allowed to run for public office. Why not? If they get elected then it's by majority rule, so it's by definition justified to a democracy. I'm not really sure why you would want to ban it in that case.

We already had this discussion within the tread, and I, who don't think they should be able to run for a public office, have already give my reasons as well. If you're interested in them, you can read my other posts in this tread.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Nobody

[Chiki]

Okay, but there's still some people who think Neo Nazis shouldn't be allowed to run for public office. Why not? If they get elected then it's by majority rule, so it's by definition justified to a democracy. I'm not really sure why you would want to ban it in that case.

[Phoenix Wright]

welcome to the topic at hand, chiki!

We already had this discussion within the tread, and I, who don't think they should be able to run for a public office have already give my reasons as well. If you're interested in them, you can read my other posts in this tread.

honestly, i think that you feel this way out of fear that such a party could actually win. parties containing blatant racists and neo-nazis won't win in a developed nation, probably ever. let them spend their money on failed campaigns.