why tf they weren’t getting arrested
Because being an asshole isn’t illegal in America. And you wouldn’t want it to be, either.
Nazis are not only grumpy assholes, they literally want to kill entire groups of people just because of their skin colour or ethnicity. A democracy can‘t tolerate people like that because they themselves are anti-democratic.
Can’t prosecute people for what they think or want, only what they do. And again, you wouldn’t want that to be the case.
You’re getting downvoted, but people just need to imagine that the people in power use that same law to arrest pro-palestinian protesters. You don’t want the government to have the legal authority to arrest you for your opinions.
That said, it doesn’t mean you as a person have to tolerate Nazis. You don’t
So the genocides need to happen again before we can do anything about them?
This isn’t thought crime - it’s a group motivated by hate, that has a history of genocide, and previously had to be stopped by the military might of the bulk of the western world. They’re working to recruit and to intimidate, there’s zero value to their existence, and very good reason to stop them.
What have I missed?
I mean… There are other models? Being a Nazi publically is illegal in a number of countries. America doesn’t have restrictions on hate speech but Canada does. Here’s how it works here :
You are totally allowed to express your opinions in private, to other people directly. If you are at my house and call me a slur - still legal. You are a fucking asshole and I am allowed at any time to tell you to leave for any reason and if you refuse to leave my house you are then commiting a completely different arrestable offence.
But if you take your paint and decide to mark a big swastika on the side of your house or wave a sign with “we should kill ____ people” (for any of the protected categories of people race/sex/sexuality/religion/gender/mental illness etc. ) on an overpass or assemble in a big group white pointy hoods with the express purpose of working yourself up to a genocide. That is illegal.
It’s the aspect of public expression which makes it illegal.
Americans tend to think that any checks on their freedom of speech is a sudden descent into 1984 but laws like this have quietly existed on our books for the past 30 years.
That is certainly a way to do it, but I don’t think limiting public expression is good. Bad things done with noble intent are still bad things.
Hard disagree. Advocacy for genocide or groups historically known to enact genocide has zero public merit. They deserve no devil’s advocate and literally nothing good comes from treating them as a valid position. At best they have a negative value of contribution to peace, social tolerance and the real everyday mental and physical welfare of people habitually eradicated by genocidal regimes.
The step these groups require to make their desired outcomes happen is to be normalized and to have the sense that they represent a majority. Allowing them to build concensus and harass their targets in public with the express permission of the law allows that foothold. Sometimes we should agree certain actions don’t belong in the places we share. That public space should reflect a democratic attitude of mutual respect, safety and tolerance.
Perhaps being a member of a group that committed a series of genocides, was a military enemy of the and US, and is grounded in nothing but conspiacism and pseudoscience that had to be stopped by the combined military force of half the western world should be illegal.
The main downside of protecting Nazism is genocide - what’s the upside?
Would you defend the rise of ISIS in the US for the same reasons, and if not, why not?
what’s the upside
That all groups are equally protected under the law, whether you like them or not. I’m sure AIPAC would love to designate supporting the liberation of Palestine a hate crime. I’m sure that corporate lobbyists would love to designate unions as a violent and disruptive organizations.
Would you defend the rise of ISIS in the US for the same reasons
If they are committing concrete acts of violence, no. If they rise as a political body, then yes.
Both ISIS and the Nazis have committed a huge amount of violence, yet you defend them - why?
You don’t see the issue with comparing two groups whose objective is genocide with two groups with fairly specific goals oriented around freedom, which have committed sporadic violence serving those ends?
For what it’s worth, I place Hamas in the Nazi/ISIS bucket for consistent reasons.
Would you defend the rise of ISIS in the US for the same reasons, and if not, why not?
I’d defend someone who’s being arrested for wearing an isis t-shirt
Putting aside the effect of the t-shirt, has that happened (for ISIS or Nazis), or are you making things up to be afraid of?
Both ISIS and Nazis are terror groups whose explicit goal it is to kill large numbers of people. Their very existence is tantamount to a death threat made against Jews, “sexual deviants”, “lesser races”, the west, socialists, and so on…
However, wearing face coverings in Florida for these purposes, IS: https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/876.12
And it hasn’t stopped cops from arresting people for being black, etc in the past.
Those laws exist in a lot of states. That’s why I mentioned Idaho specifically in the first reply. They’re home of one of the biggest KKK groups in America, and are one of the very reasons why they didn’t have those laws implemented.
