Yup basic right. Even for idgits. I agree.

Well said phxbilicee, on all counts. And how fragile are these freedoms? Losing our constitutional rights would plunge us all into a deep dark medieval space. (This is my creeping fear under Trump's 'leadership'/lack thereof.) Protecting the rights of all (even Nazis) is the only way to protect our Constitution.

@crazycurlz Exactly, it goes back to the old German Nazi trope; they came for the Jews, & I didn't complain because I wasn't Jewish. Then they came for the gypsies, & I didn't protest as I wasn't Romany, then they came for...& that is how slippery that slope is. This is why I support the ACLU, even when they defend (in court) Nazi's or the KKK. As reprehensible as those groups are, our rights are meant to "especially" protect the unpopular stance. If one want to counter-protest one of these hate groups, by all means, give 'em hell. I prefer to marginalize & mock the fools.

Is yelling FIRE in a crowded theater the only thing regarded as dangerous speech? It seems to me that hate speech is far more dangerous than yelling FIRE in a theater.

Who gets to define hate speech? According to Evangelicals, talking to kids about Atheism (or even alternative gods) is hate speech. Yelling Fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire is not "hate speech", it is inciting a panic which can cause bodily harm as people scramble to escape. If people want to stand on a corner and scream "fire and brimstone" at people as they walk by, they have that right (as long as they have the proper permits in a city). People don't have to stop and listen...and, in fact, it is useful to use to judge the sanity of the speaker and the veracity of speech. We will NOT defeat hate and lies by condemning it to secret meetings and whispered words. We will only defeat it by holding it up to public scrutiny and exposing it for what it really is.

There is no law against most types of speech, but how are you supposed to react when people want to have a "reasonable discussion" regarding the best way to kill you?

How is a black person supposed to react to the essay "Is Black Genocide Right?"
[web.archive.org]

The Nazis in pre-WW2 Germany had similar conversations about the Jewish Problem. We all know what happened within the decade.

If the law won't protect your life, then at which point does it become moral to respond outside of the law in order to keep you and your loved ones safe?

I'm not going to debate that specific with you. You should respond in a way that you believe will bring awareness to any issue...and you should take every possible measure to protect your family. There are literally billions of specific situations. This is not the forum. Bottom line --- it's better to know what is truly in someone's heart and their plans than having to guess. If you know what people truly think...then you are able to plan accordingly.

For some thoughts, yes; we do it all the time. You can't make threats or mental plans to do harm to others. Eventually your thoughts become indicators of your actual intentions, and it's right to prevent those intentions if they lead to something that hurts others. I go back to my first point: if a Nazi is dangerous enough to punch (we feel physically threatened enough to attack them) then they are dangerous enough to remove from society. Now which Nazis that is, I'm not speculating on, only making an observation.

@Honestape ok. Who is “we” and when do “we do it all the time”? You state in the post that this particular Nazi isn’t even harassing anyone. You can’t police people’s thoughts unless you’re in a Tom Cruise movie I can’t remember the name of .

@DelilahJones33 "We" is society through the law. If you tell someone you are going to assault them or tell someone else that you are going to assault them, you can be prosecuted. If someone finds a notebook with plans to assault someone, they can be prosecuted. This person hasn't harmed anyone physically and isn't necessarily harassing anyone, but clearly they are thinking about these things, and that's why we prevent it, all mind-reading or fortune-telling antics aside.

I'm not saying we should prosecute people who simply don't like other people, but if someone has expressed a will to commit violence against another, they need to be prevented from doing that.

@Honestape ok well that’s where I misunderstood your post because I consider telling someone you are going to assault them to be harassment. With that cleared up we are on the same page.

@Honestape Punishment for what you are thinking ? Don't God do that ?

@MarcIveson Yeah, but when considering what is moral, I don't think about what God does or does not do.

@Honestape that wasn't my point . How would you police the thoughts of others , and by what right .. Isn't that what God supposedly does ?

@MarcIveson How? I would once a person is known to want to commit harm to another and is willing to act on their intentions have them arrested and charged. By the right of law in this instance as it would be law in my scenario. I'm really not seeing all the hubbub here. We literally do it all the time. If you find a note book, and it has in it plans to kill the next door neighbor, it's just a thought. A plan is even just a thought. The person hasn't necessarily gathered the material, hasn't necessarily threatened the neighbor to their face, but if this person has made their intentions known, and those intentions are to hurt other people, then it makes no moral sense to allow that person to continue in society, just waiting for their chance to commit the act.

@Honestape I get what you’re saying but planning the commission of a crime in a notebook is an act not a thought and so is punishable by law. Thinking about harming someone is not and making it so is fascist.

@DelilahJones33 I mean, obviously the thought has to manifest itself in physical form in some sense. Otherwise, how would we know? I'm not saying assume people's thoughts, but I am saying someone doesn't actually have to do the thing we know they are thinking about doing for us to do something about it. And it can't just be a thought. We all have bad thoughts we don't mean and wouldn't act on.

Wait, can we go back to my original post? What's wrong with the idea that if punching an Nazi is okay, then arresting one is okay. If we aren't going to punish someone for assaulting a Nazi, then we find that Nazi to be harmful to society in some significant way that warrants their removal from it. I'm not saying arrest all Nazis. I'm not saying arrest people for simply a thought.

@Honestape Well I didn’t vote to punch anyone so...

@Honestape you wrote "For some thoughts, yes; we do it all the time." No sir, we dont.
You wrote "If you tell someone you are going to assault them...you can be prosecuted." Right. Prosecuted for the BEHAVIOR. Not the thought.

It is a criminal offense for anyone to make you reasonably fear for your safety or the safety of someone you know by...
-repeatedly following you or someone you know
-repeatedly visiting, calling, writing or contacting you or someone you know
-watching your home or workplace or the home or workplace of someone you know
-threatening you or someone in your family
No actual injury need occur. The offender does not need to have intended (or thought) to harm you. If their BEHAVIOR would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety, it is criminal harassment.

It’s a shame that you’re in the UK. One of my best friends has a bounty going whereby she will reward every confirmed punch of a Nazi with a blowjob. I kid you not. ? (I’m also told that she’s very good at them!)

They will punch you or something worse if you don't.

The best mockery of Nazis, as far as I know, is happening in Germany. [nytimes.com]

@ailurophile I can't see it but my guess it is the town in Germany that donate money to social justice of some type for every Nazi that marches by. I liked the guy who played the Baby Elephant Walk on a tuba while following their parade; he actually caused the parade to break up.

@HeathenFarmer I copy-and-paste, for your reading convenience.

"For decades, Wunsiedel, a German town near the Czech border, has struggled with a parade of unwanted visitors. It was the original burial place of one of Adolf Hitler’s deputies, a man named Rudolf Hess. And every year, to residents’ chagrin, neo-Nazis marched to his grave site. The town had staged counterdemonstrations to dissuade these pilgrims. In 2011 it had exhumed Hess’s body and even removed his grave stone. But undeterred, the neo-Nazis returned. So in 2014, the town tried a different tactic: humorous subversion.

The campaign, called Rechts Gegen Rechts — the Right Against the Right — turned the march into Germany’s “most involuntary walkathon.” For every meter the neo-Nazis marched, local residents and businesses pledged to donate 10 euros (then equivalent to about $12.50) to a program that helps people leave right-wing extremist groups, called EXIT Deutschland.

They turned the march into a mock sporting event. Someone stenciled onto the street “start,” a halfway mark and a finish line, as if it were a race. Colorful signs with silly slogans festooned the route. “If only the Führer knew!” read one. “Mein Mampf!” (my munch) read another that hung over a table of bananas. A sign at the end of the route thanked the marchers for their contribution to the anti-Nazi cause — €10,000 (close to $12,000). And someone showered the marchers with rainbow confetti at the finish line.

The approach has spread to several other German towns and one in Sweden (where it was billed as Nazis Against Nazis).

This week, following the violence in Charlottesville, Va., Wunsiedel has come back into the news. Experts in nonviolent protest say it could serve as a model for Americans alarmed by the resurgent white supremacist movement who are looking for an effective way to respond (and who might otherwise be tempted to meet violence with violence). Those I spoke with appreciated the sentiment of the antifa, or anti-fascist, demonstrators who showed up in Charlottesville, members of an anti-racist group with militant and anarchist roots who are willing to fight people they consider fascists. “I would want to punch a Nazi in the nose, too,” Maria Stephan, a program director at the United States Institute of Peace, told me. “But there’s a difference between a therapeutic and strategic response.”

@ailurophile Thanks for copying and pasting; that must be the one that I saw on the CBC documentary, it is a good idea but, when you have a president that is helping to radicalize these people it may not be enough.

@HeathenFarmer Agreed, re: "it may not be enough". Clowning someone/a group may not always be the best strategy, but it is one of my favorites.