Nazi references, Part Deux

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes lets arrest people for sharing there views that'll protect freedom

Nazis committed the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany, not even a single human lifetime ago. One would think they could be considered a criminal organisation.
Secondly, the role of propaganda in the events leading to the German disaster are well understood. Never again means never again - it is not a given that taking freedom of speech to its very absolutes should take preference over historical responsibilities.

Thirdly, how would you feel about Al Qaeda operating a New York radio station, urging listeners to donate money for another attack? To simultaneously - what I'll never understand - to simultaneously celebrate 9-11 and deny it happened in the first place.


There is an area where 'sharing your views' crosses over into running an organisation. 'The Twin Towers must be blown up' - that can be a general political statement. It can also be a direct order to specific members of your group. The former might be permissable (is it? should it be?), the latter is not. There is a grey area between the two.

[Strike For The South]

Nazis committed the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany, not even a single human lifetime ago. One would think they could be considered a criminal organisation.

Yes except they are all dead or living in Argentina. We talk about Nazis all the time on here and we aren't cenosored (even when the arguement devolves into the merits) Are you worried that because this radio stations pulpit is bigger more will be drawn to them? I have never seen you lock a thread when PJ rails on Mainsteins awesomeness or how the regime revived the fatherland. Why the double standard?

Secondly, the role of propaganda in the events leading to the German disaster are well understood. Never again means never again - it is not a given that taking freedom of speech to its very absolutes should take preference over historical responsibilities.

Telling people how to think is much more of an abridgement of freedom. So are you saying we should take the side of the victor in every war? The NAZIs were not the first and certainly not the last evil regime. Where do we draw the line? What can be propigated and what can't? Tell me.

Thirdly, how would you feel about Al Qaeda operating a New York radio station, urging listeners to donate money for another attack? To simultaneously - what I'll never understand - to simultaneously celebrate 9-11 and deny it happened in the first place.

Let it happen, The radio station will most likely become bankrupt due to lack of ad revenue and if it is financed by an outside source, will most likely fall on deaf ears anyway. If our ideals can not win over hate fueled propaganda than we have lost. People must be allowed to make there on decisons on there ideals. To take away any option leads to a devolvment of our principles. Let this man speak his drivel it is our job to speak ours and beat him. It is not our right to impose victors justice and outlaw his views because then we have simply become the Nazis.

Enlightinment ideals do not vaule the status quo they simply vaule the arena of ideas. To take away these mens outlet is to become no better than them. I refuse to lower myself to there muck even if it means dead bodies.

There is an area where 'sharing your views' crosses over into running an organisation. 'The Twin Towers must be blown up' - that can be a general political statement. It can also be a direct order to specific members of your group. The former might be permissable (is it? should it be?), the latter is not. There is a grey area between the two.

We are not talking about yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building we are talking about views.

[Devastatin Dave]

Do German chicks have hairy pits?

[Husar]

Do German chicks have hairy pits?

If I can pass as a chick, then yes.