How should society deal with Neo-Nazis?

[The Kilted Heathen]

I know right? That's my biggest complaint about all this. I just want people to be aware of the laws, because it's not even right now.

 

[LuisDantas]

You evilutionist atheist you. How dare you promote godlessness so shamelessly?
Why do you hate God?

Tom

I know you are kidding, but there is always someone who reads a post without proper context.

One should of course ask why God would be so opposed to learning...

 

[Stevicus]

Agreed. But I hope you'd be okay if we mock them mercilessly.

That could work, although even mocking should be sometimes more directed. Very often, the mocking tends to tar those who don't share the same political beliefs as the people being mocked. For example, I've heard some people trying to put down Nazis and racists by calling them "trailer trash" (or "white trash" or "redneck," terms which denote one's economic status more than one's political views). It may surprise some people to learn that there are actually liberal and progressive Democrats who happen to live in trailers and might even be considered "trash" by some standards.

That's what always kind of bugged me about the whole "mocking" approach, since it's often done by upper-class "coastals" who alienate large sections of "flyover country" with their cavalier rhetoric about "hillbillies" and whatnot. I can see mocking their political views and attitudes, but not their class or culture, since it tars other people who may not share those political views.

 

[Augustus]

And, until neo-nazis actually take ACTION rather than mere words and expression, there is nothing that should be done to rob them of their constitutionally protected rights.

In America is it protected free speech to solicit violence or make explicit threats of violence towards others?

 

[Stevicus]

In America is it protected free speech to solicit violence or make explicit threats of violence towards others?

I think the general rule is the "clear and present danger" rule. It's not protected speech if it presents a clear and present danger (such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). That leaves a good deal of leeway as far as what is allowed.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In America is it protected free speech to solicit violence or make explicit threats of violence towards others?

Again with the equality of speech; if one group is able to march down the street chanting for dead cops, and literally get the green light and "go right ahead, good people", then what could possibly cross the line so far as words go?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

if one group is able to march down the street chanting for dead cops

Who is doing that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Who is doing that?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Completely disgusting! I really don't know what to say.

 

[icehorse]

In countries like the US where "free speech" is relatively high on the world-wide "free speech continuum", there are still limits. But it's tricky at the borders of what's free and what's not, and there are many lawyers who specialize in those precise limits to free speech.

But certainly criticism of ideas, and religions are ideas, must be protected speech.

 

[VioletVortex]

Completely disgusting! I really don't know what to say.

Yes, it is. They are suggesting that police officers should die, without any regard to their individuality, that they should all die. I'd laugh if the cops showed up an arrested all of them.