No less than a while ago in where I live, Madison WI in the U.S., a small Nazi-American rally took place no less than 14 km from where I live! In most European countries, especially Germany and Russia, it is without question illegal to publicly the Nazi ideology, deny the holocaust, or even show the swastika. America cannot stop anything like this; a demonstration of hatred, and narrow-minded ignorance. This I find is abuse of America's right of speech (I think of it as a privilege). Should something this drastic be allowed, even with America's freedom of speech?!

Hells no.

yes, americas freedom of speech can indeed be abused.

somebody that knows what they are doing can cause this country all kinds of grief by abusing our freedoms.

i am amazed that murder isn't legal. i'm sure there has already been people who will say shooting someone is a protected right.

this subject is the reason americans must always be vigilant and be ready to defend what is right and just.

Freedom of speech should be more of a privilege than a right. If people get to out of hand with blind hatred and prejudice they need to be saved from themselves.

We let our Nazis parade down Main Street, where they are confronted by concentration camp survivors with tattoos. Europe forced its Nazis to go have a Holocaust Denial Festival in frelling Tehran, where they never had to encounter anyone who was not as deluded as they are.

Tell me which system is better?

Justice Brandeis said, "The best disinfectant is sunlight." I put it, "It's better to leave the cockroaches on top of the linoleum where you can keep an eye on them."

Fraggle's right, as usual. People who value and understand freedom are obligated to exercise their rights and obligations to free speech- not defer to authority to defend humanity's highest ideas and ideals.

If we aren't free to speak and act stupidly, then we are not free. If in either freedom or servility we will not bother ourselves with exposing hatred and ignorance, then hatred and ignorance will take root regardless of what is repressed or promoted in law.

All rallies of any kind should be banned. They are inherently anti-intellectual and only function to distribute Kool-Aid and thereby radicalise the gullible and feeble-minded.

I disagree—nothing's being abused. At a certain point and magnitude (as so much else in life) something that was will shift and stretch and transmute into something else. So the application here is really no longer about "freedom of speech" but "freedom to grieve". Now there's a point; address it. Should a people have the freedom to grieve? And what are they complaining about? And, most importantly (as so much else in life), is their demonstration of intolerance and hatred really about something else?

If we aren't free to speak and act stupidly, then we are not free. If in either freedom or servility we will not bother ourselves with exposing hatred and ignorance, then hatred and ignorance will take root regardless of what is repressed or promoted in law.

Why is murder illegal? Why is stealing illegal, why is rape illegal, etc. There are foundations established to save us from ourselves. Even if it means sacrificing a small portion of a right then it wouldn't matter. Saying something blatant and ignorant just because we can isn't a good reason. How many of us are Nazis anyway? If we don't have limits in our society, then eventually they will have to be set someday in our ever increasing population.

Nazi rallies are set to boost morale in their fellow nazis or Klu Klux Klan members. Without rallies, they loose touch.

Having the freedom of doing this may make the nazis feel free but not the people of whom they are targeting, i.e. Jewish, minorities, immigrants, etc.

I mean specifically Nazi rallies or any other kinds of rallies where hatred for the fellow human being is promoted. Nazi rallies especially since they are a step a way from evil. Plain and simple. Do any of you remember the Holocaust?!

This is an interesting question. Of course it is very few people cannot take freedom for granted.

In response to your thread though..How did the speech affect you? Until you answer that you have nothing really to discuss here..

What is bad about Nazi rallies? It can sometimes be beneficial to the state to have ignorant groups such as the Nazis have thier little rallies. What is more important today is to focus on the countries shortcomings such as the economy, infrastructure, and education. Surely Nazism does have an affect on this, but as far as I am concerned (since this discussion is about the U.S.A.) the Nazi rallies are just like a rally against abortion or the death penalty. Do these rallies actually make a difference? No! But not every human being live up to the standards of what it means to truly be an American. People like this are actually a necessity to the health of the nation. If we didn't let them have their rallies then they would feel their civil liberties are being violated and this would promulgate acts of violence and perhaps terrorism. What we should focus on as a nation are leaders such as Martin Luther King and well....I actually can't think of anymore people to look up to because there are so few, but in an ideal world we would have more leaders like MLK. Someone with that idea to actually step up to the responsiblity of having a nation that is united and idealistic in that sense.

Justice Brandeis said, "The best disinfectant is sunlight." I put it, "It's better to leave the cockroaches on top of the linoleum where you can keep an eye on them."

How naive.

Hitler wouldn't have gone away after giving him the option to display his ideas. In fact, they did that and he grabbed the opportunity to infect the nation with his ideology. It spread like wildfire.

Bush didn't go away because you exposed his stupidity in the media. He got elected. And then re-elected Bush wasn't prevented from going to war, install fascist laws because he was exposed. Au contraire, he got exactly what he wanted. And more.


I would suggest not to confuse reality with a fantasy world. And I certainly wouldn't trust ideas brought upon you by a system of indoctrination as having any real merit beyond the reaches of your skull.

So if we start banning speech based on political ideas, where does it stop? Who decides what is appropriate or not? I may not like what the Nazis have to say, but I'll defend their right to say it...as long as the speech doesn't break other laws (i.e. inciting a riot, or threats)

It's easy to say a group as controversial as the Nazis shouldn't be able to spew their hate, but if you ban them, who's next? The ACLU? Peta? Your church?

Just the Nazis, they are basically followers of an ideology that is one step away from plain evil. Remember the holocaust and those sadistic things that the Nazis did to people? I'm only saying that promoting these things from history back to this present time should not be tolerated. "Those who did not learn from history are bound to repeat it."

Freedom of speech isn't a privilege, it's a right. Many of my relatives died in the holocaust, and one of them survived and is living in Israel now. Denial of freedom of speech is a hallmark of the Nazis. Our freedoms represent the opposite of that.

I believe in the right of any american to say what they want regardless of the ignorance of that person

I believe in the right of any american to say what they want regardless of the ignorance of that person


I agree 100%. As long as the speech isn't infringing on someone's rights, why not?
I actually think freedom of speech is limited too much. I don't understand why anyone can't say anything to or about anyone. Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited anywhere.
Case of point, we are not allowed to call anyone names on here (even though some slip through the cracks).
I fail miserably in seeing why I can't call spidergoat a stupid blathering dumbass (just an example spidey). 1. Why would he care what I called him, unless he has thin skin and gets butt hurt all the time? 2. What grave, site-crashing destruction would a simple name called do to this website? Not a damn thing.
I'm using the site rules as a smaller representative of the laws of speech. Why aren't we allowed to call someone names, or stereotype or insult other religions? (from a logical, physical standpoint) Exactly what harm comes from any of that? Nothing. Only the fact that people have become waaaaay too thin-skinned, and get butt hurt way too easy when someone insults them. BFD. Get over it. It's not going to change your life. It's not going to cause you any grief. Please.

How naive.

Hitler wouldn't have gone away after giving him the option to display his ideas. In fact, they did that and he grabbed the opportunity to infect the nation with his ideology. It spread like wildfire.
That doesn't have much to do with freedom of speech as it does with the idiots on this planet that are stupid enough to believe what he said.

Bush didn't go away because you exposed his stupidity in the media. He got elected. And then re-elected Bush wasn't prevented from going to war, install fascist laws because he was exposed. Au contraire, he got exactly what he wanted. And more.
Presidents aren't elected directly by us voters. They are elected by an electoral college of which the representatives are under no obligation to vote in the direction that the people he/she represents want them to vote.
And while Bush wasn't prevented from doing any of that stuff, he will probably go down as the worst president in American history; I hope so anyway.

So, lacking the intelligence of knowing when an ideology (such as racism, Naziism, etc) is destructive, is a totally separate issue from freedom of speech.

Speech is without a doubt a very important factor in the U.S. but why in eastern european and germany denied when the subject turns to Naziism?

How naive. Hitler wouldn't have gone away after giving him the option to display his ideas. In fact, they did that and he grabbed the opportunity to infect the nation with his ideology. It spread like wildfire. Bush didn't go away because you exposed his stupidity in the media. He got elected. And then re-elected Bush wasn't prevented from going to war, install fascist laws because he was exposed. Au contraire, he got exactly what he wanted. And more. I would suggest not to confuse reality with a fantasy world. And I certainly wouldn't trust ideas brought upon you by a system of indoctrination as having any real merit beyond the reaches of your skull.But both Hitler and Bush came to power by conventional political means before they launched their ideological crusades. And both Hitler and Bush had a majority of their constituency already predisposed to agree with their ideas. Laws curtailing freedom of speech would not have stopped either one of them! On the contrary, if free speech could be legally curtailed in America, it would have been applied to Bush's opponents, not his supporters. You have not made your point.Just the Nazis, they are basically followers of an ideology that is one step away from plain evil. Remember the holocaust and those sadistic things that the Nazis did to people? I'm only saying that promoting these things from history back to this present time should not be tolerated. "Those who did not learn from history are bound to repeat it."Indeed. And by outlawing the display of Nazi paraphernalia and the repetition of Nazi propaganda, Europeans are making it difficult for their children to study their history.

We exhibit a certain coginitive dissonance on SciForums. We ban racist propaganda the same way we ban pornography and excessive profanity, because we don't want parents blocking their children from our website. But that prevents the more mature members from seeing racist propaganda in action in the controlled environment of a moderated forum, which might be a good lesson for them.

But both Hitler and Bush came to power by conventional political means before they launched their ideological crusades. And both Hitler and Bush had a majority of their constituency already predisposed to agree with their ideas. Laws curtailing freedom of speech would not have stopped either one of them!

Hitler could not have made a rise to power if hate speech had been illegal. You are merely confirming my point. Hitler abused free speech (not that free speech existed back then) and rose to power. According to you free speech should prevent shit from rising to surface of the pool. And it doesn't.

Or are you suddenly implying that "sunlight is the best disinfectant", but it still doesn't really disinfect. Makes your entire repertoire of rhetoric rather pointless then.



On the contrary, if free speech could be legally curtailed in America, it would have been applied to Bush's opponents, not his supporters. You have not made your point.

Why should the Bush administration curtail free speech? Are they fascists? Did the sunlight not disinfect them? You admit again that your rhetoric is false?


Indeed. And by outlawing the display of Nazi paraphernalia and the repetition of Nazi propaganda, Europeans are making it difficult for their children to study their history.

They have schools, museums, history books, educational programs for studying history in Europe, memorials etc. Indeed, it is a silly way of teaching history isn't it!?

I am just amazed to hear that in the USA they study history by displaying Nazi paraphernalia and exposure to Nazi propaganda. Seems kind of shallow. Even for Americans. It explains a lot though.


{insert sarcasm}
But I can see your point. It is better to let skinheads read Mein Kampf (the American free speech method) then to organize a school trip to Auschwitz (European restricted free speech method).
{end sarcasm}

Monkey...

thanks for all your non help

cheers mate!!

But I can see your point. It is better to let skinheads read Mein Kampf (the American free speech method) then to organize a school trip to Auschwitz (European restricted free speech method).Skinheads won't take the trip to Auschwitz. At least not in America, where children have more rights and fewer responsibilities than grownups. I haven't read Mein Kampf but everyone I know who has said they were glad they did.

If Europeans genuinely believe that their skinheads are not reading Mein Kampf just because it is illegal, they are deluded. The best way to make something popular is to outlaw it because good people resent having their choices restricted by the bureaucrats who are supposed to be their civil "servants" just as much as evil people do. Look at what Prohibition in America did for booze. Women began going to taverns. Children are attracted to taboos; they love nothing so much as something that requires sneaking.

Nothing has caused civilization as much cumulative grief as religion. Should we take your argument to its logical extreme and outlaw the sale and possession of the Talmud, Bible and Koran? Prohibit the formation of religious organizations, persecute people for joining them? Ban the singing of hymns and the display of the Mogen David, cross and crescent? Or is it going to turn out that you personally have soft spot for the cancer of religion, so you get to make the decision that it's okay to allow that kind of free speech, but not the kind of free speech that encourages the followers of one Abrahamic religion to kill the followers of another?

Skinheads won't take the trip to Auschwitz. At least not in America, where children have more rights and fewer responsibilities than grownups.

??? Doesn't make any sense.

American skinheads do not take schooltrips to Auschwitz? yeah, duh. It's in Europe you know.



If Europeans genuinely believe that their skinheads are not reading Mein Kampf just because it is illegal, they are deluded. The best way to make something popular is to outlaw it because good people resent having their choices restricted by the bureaucrats who are supposed to be their civil "servants" just as much as evil people do. Look at what Prohibition in America did for booze. Women began going to taverns. Children are attracted to taboos; they love nothing so much as something that requires sneaking.


It seems that you are the deluded one.

1. you seem to be under the impression you cannot read mein kampf in Europe. Europe is big. It's quite ok to read mein kampf in most European countries.

Where can't you read it?
In Austria, the possession and/or trading of Mein Kampf is illegal.

In France, the selling of the book is forbidden unless the transaction concerns a historical version including commentaries from specialists and states the law allowing its special historical edition. - you can read it though.

In the Netherlands, selling the book, even in the case of an old copy, is illegal as "promoting hatred", but possession and lending is not. - you can read it.

In Spain, Argentina and Denmark, the book is unavailable, but copies before the unavailability of the book still exist. - You can read it.

So basically it is only Austria where you can't read it.

In germany you can trade the book unless it is to promote hate speech.

2. You don't seem to understand how European law works. Everybody is allowed to read 'mein Kampf', everybody is allowed to do some hate speech.

It's just that it has consequences afterwards in some countries.

It's the same for killing animals. Everybody is allowed to kill any animal. When you kill a fly nothing happens. When you kill a pig nothing happens. IF you kill it according to the proper regulations. Otherwise you are in shit trouble.



3. And what are you talking about: censorship? Did you ever look at the book shelves in the USA? the USA has a rich history of censorship. Just not Mein kampf because it fits so well with the American ideology.