The Socialist Thread

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by ComradeLer, Nov 29, 2011.

Page 7 of 7

  1. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    As an American I have a more far reaching definition of free speech and a broader definition of what should be protected. Part of the way a US court would justify restricting guys like that would be to argue that speech that incites towards violence isn't political speech and thus isn't protected. If a parties primary objective is to cause pain and suffering then it isn't a political party, it is just a psudo criminal organization wearing the mask of a political one, and as such is not privy to speech protection. If however, their hatred isn't their primary focus, then a government would allow it to exist in it's purest form, but would prohibit it from the kind of speech that would incite others towards violence.

    Basically, it would partition the parties views into acceptable things to talk about, and unacceptable. An American jurist would argue that it is completely within his rights to believe in racism, but he can't go so far as to take action, or compel others to take action. Not knowing enough about the particulars of this situation, I couldn't say what the American response to this particular party would be. I an assume that any parties responsible or related to actual acts of violence, would be prosecuted, but the party itself would be allowed to exist, so long as the majority of their agenda was a political one.

    For anyone interested in the American legal persective on free speech / hate speech / and the limits thereof, I'd suggest reading the opinion of the Snyder v Phelps case (which basically said it was okay for the Westboro baptist church to protest at military funerals). I think it's Whitney v California that deals with what constitutes inciting speech and why that isn't permissible. Err correction on that, Whitney established some principles that were later overruled in Brandenburg v Ohio. The doctrine is basically "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This kind of lies at the core of the American idea of freedom of speech, which I understand is different from most European conceptions which is why you often find conversations like this aligning themselves up into American and foreign camps.

    Anyways, some links for you guys
    Snyder v Phelps: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf
    Brandenburg v Ohio, has a per curium opinion, but also has two concurring opinions (one of which I think is more interesting) so I'll just link the syllabus, click on any of the html links near the top to read the actual opinions: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0395_0444_ZS.html
    pedro3131, Nov 30, 2011
    #121
    Viking Socrates likes this.

  2. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Look, it is obvious we have different perspectives and values when it comes to free speech, and that we have to respect those perspectives and values.

    To my opinion: @mdhookey To say that the fear of a majority over the minority is a mute point is ludicrous. People are people, and it will always be "us over them". And if people, even if they were the majority, will stand on the backs of the minority to achieve their goals. And if you and your friends found Kali's views funny, your gonna find these hilarious:

    Here is what happens when the majority is placed over the minority in Germany:
    [IMG]

    Sorry, I don't like it just as much as you do, but it's true.
    LeonTrotsky, Nov 30, 2011
    #122

  3. Lenin Cat Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,591
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    New York
    The nazis never won a majority.
    Lenin Cat, Nov 30, 2011
    #123

  4. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Right, but the representative of the majority appointed him chancellor.
    LeonTrotsky, Nov 30, 2011
    #124

  5. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    The nazi party was pretty unliked even then, people all ways have this false idea that every German or at least a super majority supported Hitler.
    Viking Socrates, Nov 30, 2011
    #125

  6. LeonTrotsky Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Well, it wasn't a super majority, but a majority did support him, that is undeniable. It would be foolish to blame every single German at the time for what the Nazis did, but it would be equally foolish to say that only a small percentage were in agreement with the Germans. That's like saying the Vietcong were only a minority faction, or that the American Revolution was fought only by a few revolutionaries and that the colonies were mostly loyalists.
    LeonTrotsky, Nov 30, 2011
    #126

  7. Achtung Kommunisten! Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Birmingham, United Kingdom, European Union
    Looks like my evil plan to ruin/derail your socialist thread worked perfectly!
    But on a more serious note, looks like the consensus is that most of us are so repelled by hate speech and racism we would value its repression over free speech. Surely this is conservative? You bunch of right-wingers - bwah ha ha ha ha! :)
    And no, despite being the biggest party, the Nazis weren't elected. But then neither was Churchill. Or Stalin. Also means they had a better mandate than David Cameron.
    Achtung Kommunisten!, Nov 30, 2011
    #127

  8. Warburg Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Message Count:
    834
    Likes Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    United Federal Kingdoms of Scandinavia
    No they didn't. Hitler killed/threathened his way to power. The majority of the German people didn't support him, but were too afraid of the paramilitary organisations to do anything.
    Warburg, Dec 1, 2011
    #128

  9. joske Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    609
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Well suprisingly the thread got derailed...dum, dum,duum.

    Also Hookey social-democracy originaly was socialist in the sense they still wanted to establish socialism through parliamentary politics and gradual reform through things such as a welfare state, minimum wages...etc. The point is that practically every social democratic party has dropped that part of its ideology a long time, and in essence they took their means and made it into their ends.
    joske, Dec 1, 2011
    #129

  10. Viking Socrates I am Mad Scientist

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    9,153
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Trophy Points:
    248
    Location:
    In a cave,watching shadows (Plato reference)
    Still the Social democratic party is the closet to a former socialist party where going to get into anything, *sigh* but anyways the Social democrats are about as socialist as modern day conservatives are well classical conservative.
    Viking Socrates, Dec 1, 2011
    #130
Page 7 of 7

Share This Page

Facebook: