Extremism, freedom of speech and national security

[Sultan Of Swing]

Freedom of speech is great. It doesn't matter how politically incorrect your opinion may be, you have the right to express it and we're not going to hunt you down and burn you at the stake.

I firmly believe this. It is fundamental.

And yet, at the same time, I believe people who are teaching extremist ideologies should be thrown in jail or out of the country altogether. For the sake of the well-being and security of the people, extremist views (e.g. Islamist views) just shouldn't be tolerated, because they are views that seek to suppress all freedom and harm and destroy lives. If making a death threat is illegal, then teaching an extremist ideology is almost indirectly doing that, except the death threat is against everyone.

In terms of immigration, I believe there should be proper screening and checks to ensure people who have detrimental extremist views simply shouldn't be allowed into the country.

Benjamin Franklin's quote comes to mind, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Well, ol' Benjamin didn't have to deal with Islamist ideologies that were being taught in the country.

To what extent is he right? Do you agree with banning teaching extremist ideologies? What about simply having extremist views? Freedom of speech is paramount... but is it so paramount to risk national security?

 

[Apex]

No.

Legislate the actions, not the ideologies.

 

[Revoltingest]

No.
Legislate the actions, not the ideologies.

I agree, but I might make an exception where the ideology specifically teaches & advocates violence, which would rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy. So I'm abstaining from voting.

 

[Nietzsche]

Neo-Nazism does not deserve the benefit of protection of the law. Nor does Jewish, Christian & Islamic Fundamentalism.

 

[JRMcC]

Wait is there a basic definition of extremist ideology I can work with here?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Wait is there a basic definition of extremist ideology I can work with here?

That which seeks to inflict physical harm and/or subjugation and/or forced conversion on certain sections of the populace would probably do it.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No.

Legislate the actions, not the ideologies.

Does teaching the ideology count as an action?

 

[Drolefille]

Where do you draw a line? And could a line be drawn fairly?

 

[Wu Wei]

That which seeks to inflict physical harm and/or subjugation and/or forced conversion on certain sections of the populace would probably do it.

Then you pretty much hit everybody...from Islamic extremists, to the Westboro Baptist Church.

I think one could even make an argument that the Catholic churches stand on Homosexuality could fall under that definition

 

[oldbadger]

I can't vote.
We couldn't tie down 'extremist ideology' without removing freedom of faith, religion, speech and expression from innocent groups.
Can't do it.

 

[Apex]

Does teaching the ideology count as an action?

If you want to get that specific, legislate actions which violate other peoples rights. Teaching an ideology violates no ones rights.

 

[England my lionheart]

Freedom of speech is great. It doesn't matter how politically incorrect your opinion may be, you have the right to express it and we're not going to hunt you down and burn you at the stake.

I firmly believe this. It is fundamental.

And yet, at the same time, I believe people who are teaching extremist ideologies should be thrown in jail or out of the country altogether. For the sake of the well-being and security of the people, extremist views (e.g. Islamist views) just shouldn't be tolerated, because they are views that seek to suppress all freedom and harm and destroy lives. If making a death threat is illegal, then teaching an extremist ideology is almost indirectly doing that, except the death threat is against everyone.

In terms of immigration, I believe there should be proper screening and checks to ensure people who have detrimental extremist views simply shouldn't be allowed into the country.

Benjamin Franklin's quote comes to mind, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Well, ol' Benjamin didn't have to deal with Islamist ideologies that were being taught in the country.

To what extent is he right? Do you agree with banning teaching extremist ideologies? What about simply having extremist views? Freedom of speech is paramount... but is it so paramount to risk national security?

I voted no because its taken a long time to have freedom of speech,its better that these views are out in the open than being underground where they cant be shown to be wrong.

 

[McBell]

Freedom of speech is great. It doesn't matter how politically incorrect your opinion may be, you have the right to express it and we're not going to hunt you down and burn you at the stake.

I firmly believe this. It is fundamental.

And yet, at the same time, I believe people who are teaching extremist ideologies should be thrown in jail or out of the country altogether. For the sake of the well-being and security of the people, extremist views (e.g. Islamist views) just shouldn't be tolerated, because they are views that seek to suppress all freedom and harm and destroy lives. If making a death threat is illegal, then teaching an extremist ideology is almost indirectly doing that, except the death threat is against everyone.

In terms of immigration, I believe there should be proper screening and checks to ensure people who have detrimental extremist views simply shouldn't be allowed into the country.

Benjamin Franklin's quote comes to mind, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Well, ol' Benjamin didn't have to deal with Islamist ideologies that were being taught in the country.

To what extent is he right? Do you agree with banning teaching extremist ideologies? What about simply having extremist views? Freedom of speech is paramount... but is it so paramount to risk national security?

Who gets to decide what is and what is not an "extremist ideology"?

 

[jeager106]

Legislate the actions not the ideology.
Murder, in the name of Allah is still murder.
Making slaves of women is illegal.
Blowing up people and buildings should be punished according to law.
Islam is not exempt no matter how offensive they see a cartoon.
Islamics the world over are now demonstrating in support of the murders in Paris.
It's on CNN now.

 

[Yerda]

Is incitement to violence not already a crime?

 

[Laika]

Voted No. It's pretty difficult to hold "extremist" views as the peer pressure to give them up is enormous. Most people only become "extremists" when something has gone terribly wrong and society is already starting to fall apart- at which point banning it won't do anything.

Is incitement to violence not already a crime?

Yes. I believe the general consensus is that talking of political violence in the abstract is legal, so a discussion purely on the ethics of terrorism, revolution, assassination etc is legal. But something which includes specific details crosses the line to incitement. e.g. assassinate X at place Y at time Z.

 

[Yerda]

In terms of immigration, I believe there should be proper screening and checks to ensure people who have detrimental extremist views simply shouldn't be allowed into the country.

How would we do that?

 

[Laika]

How would we do that?

The USA introduced a Ban on immigration for those who had membership of the Communist Party in the McCarthy Era. It still stands today, but there was a supreme court judgement that allowed for people who can prove they did it for Career advancement to still become US Citizens (such as dissidents in communist states who defect). There are also restrictions on Anarchists and "Totalitarians".

Ideological restrictions on naturalization in U.S. law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just checked; it actually goes so far as to allow for deportation of immigrants who participate in subversive activities.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Apex]

What is with Europeans wanting to replicate the McCarthy era in the US?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

How would we do that?

If they're known members of extremist organisations. An interview would help as well, if a person is bold enough to admit their extremist views then that's good reason to not let them in.