The constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness, which a nazi rally is actively campaigning against for a large group of people.

You seem to want to minimise it by just saying it's a bit of name calling and you can call back, but these are people who are trying to mobilise support against all non whites. If you keep protecting their right to spread hate, then hate is what you'll get. It is impossible that it will ever turn into reasoned debate.

For the same reason you have an army and don't just send people out on holiday to fight wars. You have to be mentally ill to be a klan member and there is no telling what they would do. They should be stopped by government, not civilians. At least the klan members are white, so if the police turned up to stop them then they wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.

 

Maybe, however you then have to try to draw a line and that gets insanely hard to do. To that end as reprehensible and abhorrent as their ideas may be, and worse still to my sensibilities lacking any real foundation in logic, until they cross the line of specific directions or incitement such that someone is likely to get hurt as a direct consequence (the classic example being something like if they were screaming for the killing of all purple eyed people and directed them to do that where they were at -- they may not know have known the name or even that one was around but as a direct and foreseeable consequence...).
To that end if you want to note who they are, not be friends with them, not employ them, not use their services, deny them non essential services you might run... OK then, more power to you in fact.
To deny them the right to speak though... the world has to be big enough and ugly enough to take care of itself.
You appear to be somewhat worried about it being contagious, and maybe it is, however underground it can still thrive. I will also bring up the Superman radio drama -- it had all sorts of real code words and whatever else fed to it by an infiltrator, broadcast out... membership and support fell dramatically once people were aware of the batshit insane ideas they were spouting. Prior to that they were also routinely investigated by law enforcement and not exactly allowed free reign.

Spin it another way. Religions of various stripes, caused no small amount of strife both individual and group wise throughout history, their codified rules in books they purport to follow contain some egregious shit. Big protest saying we need more religion. What do you do? It could be functionally the same thing. Worse is you know it will be one of those slippery slope things; what government in history has really ever surrendered powers (particularly ones that juicy) or not feature crept them? Go another. All those people protesting the police. Someone (or better yet a nice false flag) sees a policeman get popped. If you have that you now have those essential to law and order (not even just citizens) being killed and your protest criminalised, or at least... seriously legally dissuaded, as a result.

The though of surrendering some free speech to combat them... just no. I don't know if in this instance it means they have won but someone has and it ain't me.

 

There are already plenty of laws, sentencing guidelines and modifiers to things covering everything from denying services to violence. Plenty adequate from where I sit, certainly nothing I am inclined to surrender some rights to speech for or complicate existing ones when there are already fairly simple tried and tested lines.

 

What they are doing isn't illegal. I mean they are shitty people but who cares. You basically want laws in place to ban speech that you don't like.

 

Is that not why we have, or are supposed to have, fairly robust sets of foundational laws and aspects of law making to prevent the egregious stuff in the event of public opinion (or public opinion within an area) departing from those such that laws could go through? Even leaving aside them being a minor fringe element with no real chance of numbers on their side to pull such a thing off I don't see that happening by virtue of those foundational things.

I am more worried about things going the other way and us getting laws enforcing quotas for increasingly convoluted and fuzzy lines of division, ones I was always taught were things that did not matter and remains a sentiment I fully agree with, rather than doing the whole meritocracy bit. Indeed such things are already happening https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...en-board-directors-companies-law-jerry-brown-

In what way? Things are pretty sweet out there these days if you go by historical standards.

I am still also failing to see the harms being done that warrant my having to give up something of a fundamental right, one which has served the world exceptionally well since its advent and adoption. So some oxygen thieves with some strange ideas about how the world should work wandered around and shouted a bit, before going home. Some bellend that was variously associated with them killed some people for reasons that could not be justified, nor be called a directed attack, and has been striped up for it. I would say the system works.

Edit.

I can't speak for the one you quoted, though I suspect I have company, but I am happy with the status quo. Say whatever you like until it counts as an incitement, fraud, perjury, directed attack, libel/slander, infringement of intellectual property or the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing, at which point prepare to be slapped. Some of those, looking mainly at intellectual property as far as matters US go, could use a bit of a tune up and clarification but that is a different discussion. I see no need to add any isms to that, even more so given their rather fluid/variable definitions these days, and indeed every reason not to.

 

Until they look like they are going away or not being enforced I am OK.

If you reckon they are so very dangerous then by all means do something about it. I can't see a reason to be any more worried about them than I am about an ant nest three countries (and a sea) away. Anybody that really lends their ideas that much credence has far bigger problems that can be sorted other ways -- such groups attempt to offer belonging, meaning and purpose, very alluring concepts to most people and for many of their typical recruits quite hard to come by. Find a way to provide that and deprogram/rehabilitate those that were already caught up in things (. Far more effective in the long run, far easier to manage (if it is not the racists then criminal enterprises proper, or maybe just gangs, tend to step in and they require a whole other set of laws*) and no need to step on any free speech in the process.

Does that speak to reality or the models of it "most" people were using? The former almost by definition can't be flawed.

I would go with another approach. There are laws everybody agrees will be the stuff for hundreds of years/until a fundamental shift in society. There are laws that will do for now. There are laws that need to be made in reaction to big changes. There are laws that are kneejerk reactions, kneecapped by various interests, or fail to encompass things. The job of the legal and political system is to sort them out.

*to say nothing of I am not sure how you are supposed to draw a ring around these people, not trouble those with similar but untroubling views, not drive things underground and make them sexy, not have them immediately do something to classify themselves outside the circle you drew and all the stuff I mentioned before.

 

The snarky response would surely be like you into thinking giving up free speech in some capacity is a good plan? I will actually go with that as well. That said I am worried it might happen either so slowly or too quickly (this article 13 lark in Europe for one). I can only try my best, try to improve and hope those that play this game even better do the same.

If the US is doing the whole "can't compete with free enterprise" thing they like to do for reasons I never figured out then make it a charity, indeed there are already plenty for ex gang, ex religion, ex groups like those under discussion. Also if we are to go down the government path it would not be against the current bogeyman but all of them (fat and happy people with a job and a purpose don't typically blow stuff up and kill other people, be it for colour, creed, crime or similar), and able to be done under the, for want of a better term, guise of improving schools, infrastructure, transportation, access to jobs... nothing anybody but the most hardcore of a few different groups would object to if you are able to demonstrate results (as opposed to a wasteful slush fund like so many other things).

 

Sure, it's like if you have cancer. If you don't do anything you'll die of it & if you try to treat it then you could die sooner or later. Nobody knows up front what result you'll get.

If you have an alternative way of dealing with the neo nazis other than tolerating them and letting them gain greater support, then I'd love to hear it.

I think it's lunacy that anyone is allowed to carry guns in public, but you allow people to do it and that is what happens.

 

Such discussions have been happening as long I have been here, and as best I can tell as long as the forums have as well.
As long as you attempt to enforce the "bring reasons" part of things then it works out OK.

Except this is not cancer as much as a minor skin irritation that will mostly fade away if left as is. Start cutting away good things and you will do more damage than you ever might heal.

Solution wise then even ignoring my massive misgivings with your proposed one I already went. Most people in such groups are either brought in by the allure of a group and a place to be, occasionally also having been a victim of "others" (said others often also being broke kids brought in by the allure of a group to have your back and a place to be). Prevent that from happening (decent schools, decent transport, chance of a half decent job, possibly intervention at family level*...) and the rest will pretty much solve itself -- I would probably go so far as to say a 1940's/1950s (or older iterations) version of the racist movements could not really take hold today by virtue of society being the way it is, deny them the few recruits they could still get, keep the social pressure aspects and you are good. Keep it up for a couple of generations and you will be laughing at the notion like you might be laughing at the original luddites today. You will probably want to be doing that anyway for other reasons (the luddites might not have been right then but the rate of automation today is going to lead to some interesting things).

*I don't know for certain (I do for crime and other such things, and would wager serious money here) but I would say no small amount of their main recruitment pool are poor, single parent homes, with just plain poor being a close runner up.

Choice videos, good stuff but the stories behind them are ones I have heard time and time again for gangs and people that went off the rails.