Is it right to ban Nazism & similar 'Hate' groups?

Question

In Germany & Austria its illigal to be a Nazi, in Britain you can get arrested for speaking publicly on any subject considered to incite hate....is this denying free speach? The EU is considering making holocaust denial a crime despite some academics questioning the extent & evidence we are told to believe. Does the government in any country have the right to to dictate an individuals belief & censure a persons right to voice an opinion? Are we heading for a situation where we are only allowed to hold state santioned beliefs?

Answer 1

I dont think banning ideas is cool but you can ban stuff like:
We should kill the kikes etc. inciting the general populace to violence is not good.

Answer 2

It's not really banned in Germany to be a neo-Nazi, although they are not allowed to deny the Holocaust, call for killing of people or display swastika in public they still have a lot of free speech, their party NPD is not banned (it was attempted to ban it, but it was not possible because of free speech, and that party is really very radical), they can make demonstrations and all this. Once a year they march up in my town and the police protects them from the leftists who want to beat them up just to garantee their free speech!! There is always an anti-demonstration, but we can't stop the neo-Nazi demonstrations, because the constitution that they despise so much gives them the right of free speech!

As for Holocaust denial I can just say that these "academics" simply deliberately lie in order to incite hatred. I see it makes no sense to debate the issue with you as it seems you consider the fact that the Holocaust happened, and to the extend that it did, a "belief". Well, you can believe that the sun rotates around the earth if you wish, same way you can believe that the Holocaust did not happen or that it's extend was less than it was, but you cannot spread hate and insult people in public. There is no secret police in Germany that investigates if there are people who deny the Holocaust in private and punishes them. But the ones who are to be punished are these agitators who call themselves "academics" who have the only goal to incite hate.

Answer 3

I personally would say NO, it is not right to ban specific hate groups. As much as the behavior of such groups are distasteful, to be polite; in a free society, even the dissenters need to be able to voice thier opinion, if only to give others the chance to be forwarned of thier measure of insanity.
Banning groups forces them underground, where the claim of persecution can add glamor, and in some cases power to thier form of insanity. And history has already shown what that can lead to. The original Nazis were banned so thier actions, such as robbing banks and clandestine murders were easily absorbed into the practice of the group. Look at the end result of that point in time.
Hidden groups without openess, are more easily empowered to take darker actions and often more prone to those whose only real aim is personal power, the cost of which is always paid for by the membership, and others who are in essence, non-involved persons.
Banning leads to groups like the Aryan nations, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Posse Commitatus. all of whom use the existing laws of an are to create legal chaos by obstructing the system, and them claiming persecution when thier actions get the expected negative response.
By allowing these groups to stay in the light of day, so to speak, it also allows the uninvolved citizenry to keep their eye on these groups actions and allows for much needed debate and discussion when there is a real complaint.
Few people know that one of the original groups to propose both a vote and equal rights under the law (as far as enforcement) for women, was the American Communist Party of the 1930's.
There is another side to the coin as well- banned groups are easy targets for real state-organised persecution, even if the actions are in name at least, for the protection of the populace. Waco Texas, despite the intentions of just checking out claims of arms hoarding, did end up a debacle because some opf the weopns used were more dangerous than thought . Smoke bombs are incendiary devices, and while Waco could be argued as a tragedy of misinformation and ignorance, people still died mostly from the actions of the Federal Government, however ignorant of thier ordinance.
With banned and underground groups, such even foolish and stupid actions become more easily swept under the rug in th name of 'national interest 'or security, so there are two sides to the coin that better supports an arguement for public openness and individual awareness.

Answer 4

No. the 2d you start up advocating the censoring of a team of folk, you grow to be purely as undesirable because of the fact the persons you opt to censor. we've some thing talked approximately as freedom of speech in this usa, and that's mandatory in case you may desire to make helpful our usa remains loose. Say we ban the religious speech, because of the fact some view it hateful. you have purely given the government license to prohibit any recommendations or speech it deems hateful. next it would desire to be the persons who're protesting a central authority which they sense has grow to be corrupt. What keeps the government from banning speech that's intense of them? might you like no longer having the flexibility to protest some thing that the government has completed incorrect? have confidence me, censorship is a slippery slope, which you do no longer opt to start down. How approximately no longer listening the subsequent time you finally end up indignant or aggravated. does not that be a lot extra handy?

Answer 5

It is very difficult. What constitutes a 'group'? And what constitutes 'hate'. If I organise a group to dissent (using legal methods) against another group such as, say, Tories or Scottish Nationalists etc. am I inciting people to hate? After all, me and my group clearly don't like them otherwise we wouldn't have organised in the first place! The difference, perhaps, between my hypothetical group group and a 'hate' group, is that we do not incite violence and other illegal activities. It is legal in this country to create or belong to groups which legally dissent against the doctrine of multiculturalism (such as the political party British National Party).

Answer 6

It is wrong to have a law that bans thoughts, you right to believe anything you want. However the government does have a right to make unlawful any actions that an individual or group take against anothers right to pursue happiness.

For instance, the Klan has the right to march. However they do not have the right to lynch people. Lynching people is definitely an action that prevents someones pursuit of happiness.

How do you legislate thoughts?

Answer 7

It's funny how, in America, we have groups like the ACLU (which has a lot of Jewish lawyers as members) doing their best to give ppl the freedom to have those kind of groups, but in Europe they ban them.

I don't think those groups should be banned, but inciting murder or other violent attacks should be....as it already is.
.

Answer 8

We are not heading for a situation where we are only allowed to hold state sanctioned beliefs. We've already arrived.

Answer 9

It is about justice and respect. Banning Nazis, the KKK, etc. is showing justice and respect for humanity. People should not be allowed to harm others because of their prejudice.

Answer 10

No, people should have a right to their beliefs and groups, no matter how immoral those beliefs may be.
Freedom of speech is a precious thing.