When will Congress enact anti-Nazi laws similar to Germany's Strafgesetzbuch section 86a?

[Mr. Ected]

Until Congress acts (and I'm looking at you, MAJORITY Republican leaders), they are complicit in this devolution of our society.

Each Congressperson needs to be on record as to their stance on such legislation. Against it? Fine. You get a swastika/klan hood next to your name the next time you run for re-election.

Democrats will be running against Trump and the Nazis in 2018. Make those SOBs in the GOP own this. And why not. It's defined them for decades.

[flibbitygiblets]

1. I'm guessing when Democrats rule

Ever met a Democrat white supremacist?

[marybourg]

2. I hope never. nt

[struggle4progress]

22. +

[onenote]

3. Never. And that's a good thing.

Such legislation would be struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court.

[Demsrule86]

4. Never. Much as I hate their Nazi shit speech, I believe in the first amendment.

The old I hate what you say and everything you stand for, but I would die for your right to say it.

[Voltaire2]

5. Unconstitutional.

[MineralMan]

6. Most likely never. Any such laws would quickly be thrown out

by the courts.

Freedom of speech also includes the right to oppose people who speak of hatred and treason. Overwhelm such people with numbers and they will lose every time. Meet them with overwhelming numbers - on the street and at the polling place.

[Mr. Ected]

7. In my eyes, a Nazi symbol is akin to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater

And per O.W. Holmes in Schenck v. US, "...the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".

[marybourg]

10. The red line actually is

FALSELY shouting fire in a crowed theater. I don't see how a Nazi symbol can be likened to falsely anything.

It's the real symbol of a hateful belief and can be countered by more and better beliefs and symbols. Actions beget actions, but a symbol isn't an action.

[NutmegYankee]

13. The "clear and present danger" test of Schenck v. United States is no longer law

Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it.

[NYC Liberal]

27. That case was about jailing anti-war activists, and that reasoning

was used to justify it.

Thankfully, that decision was overturned a long time ago.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Never understood how America lost so many lives fighting fascism, racism and antisemitism

in three epic wars but did not ban groups, hate speech and symbols of these very same things that so many died so as to kill forever?
The first amendment was before Nazis wasn't it?
And who would really die defending Nazis who are hoping to party again like it was 1939?

[marybourg]

9. Because we don't fear speech. We don't fear

symbols. We didn't fight Nazi speech. We didn't fight Nazi symbols. We fought behavior. We fought actions.

When we start banning words and symbols, will we only ban those words and symbols that represented parties we actually fought wars against?

What if we only fought skirmishes against them, but not a declared war, like ISIS symbols?

What if the nazis come up with new catch phrases and new symbols? Will people start demanding we ban those?

What happens when the next tRump comes along and wants to ban BLM and its symbols?


Use your head, Fred.

[sarisataka]

16. Simple

we also fought authoritarianism. The three things you list are symptoms, authoritarianism is the enabling factor.

[Oneironaut]

18. Who defines what a hate group is? The majority?

I've seen every group in the current political climate called a hate group. Many people say Atheists are a hate group.

The first amendment will always be relevant and necessary. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either uninformed or has an ulterior motive.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Hate groups are legally and clearly defined in many free countries. Look them up.

[oberliner]

26. Then you don't understand The First Amendment

And why it is so critical.

[NutmegYankee]

11. Considering that Congress is specifically forbidden from doing so - Never

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[davekriss]

12. When the 1st Amendment is repealed

[tritsofme]

14. I would hope zero Democrats would vote for such an authoritarian, shitty bill

It would be an absolute disgrace, along with all who would support it.

[sarisataka]

15. I would not vote

for anyone in favor of such legislation; they wouldn't be Democratic.

[Oneironaut]

17. Hopefully never, as we have a first amendment.

Americans understand that, while some speech might be vile, we are a free society. We don't want people being dragged off to jail for voicing a political opinion.

[white_wolf]

21. Sincere question, is Germany not a free society?

Many countries have laws banning hate speech and hateful symbols, but I would still consider them free.

[marybourg]

24. Germany's history is different from ours.

Germany was defeated in war; a war caused by Germany's actions.

After the war there was a period of occupation by Allied forces, and war crimes trials which went on for several years and ended in execution for some. Germany underwent the process of "de-nazification" under the occupation, wherein all the symbols and speech of the LOSING SIDE in the war were banned.

This was a sort of symbolic punishment for Germany's institutions, in lieu of the kind of punishment usually meted out to countries that lose a war. We didn't take their treasure, we didn't take their women and children, we didn't force them to speak English. They were forced to pay reparations to certain countries and people and to give up the use of their wartime symbols.

After the Allied occupation ended, Germany decided that its history demanded the keeping in place of the ban on the symbols of the party that caused Germany's slide into terror and war. That was Germany's call. Our history doesn't demand such abridgment of our right to free speech.

[Fred Sanders]

32. Germans and France know better. Their hate speech laws work just fine. American also

need them or history may repeat...in America.

[Egnever]

19. Never

Nor should they.

Today is exactly the response Nazis should get in this country not an erosion of free speech.

[white_wolf]

20. I know I'll be in the minority, but I wish they would.

They can't because of the First Amendment, but many countries that are just as free as the U.S. have similar laws banning hate speech.

[Fred Sanders]

33. Yep. And just as free. America is/has made a huge mistake....now it pays the price.

[Iggo]

23. Never, I hope. That's not who we are.

[KWR65]

25. The republican party is the white supremacist party.

This goes all the way back to Nixon's southern strategy.

[wasupaloopa]

28. We have a Constitution. Let's not turn up into fascists ourselves

[LittleBlue]

29. DU seems to have an impossible time understanding the First Amendment

Like no matter how many times this is explained, we still get threads like this.

It's very clear in cases like this. Congress can't effectively pass laws jailing people for ideological symbols, even if those symbols are offensive. Ever. For any reason.

[LeftInTX]

30. They had a neo-Nazi rally today in Germany - I heard it on NPR about 40 minutes ago

It was to commemorate the death of a Nazi who died on this day in 1987. I believe his name was Hess. Swastikas etc. were not allowed.

[marylandblue]

31. Just think what would happen in red states without the 1st Amendment

Do you think they would ban the rainbow flag or the Nazi flag? That's why we need the first amendment.