13 ms·

It's very scary that the world has become a place that people think it's normal to arrest people just because they are a member of a group without any evidence

It's very scary that the world has become a place that people think it's normal to arrest people just because they are a member of a group without any evidence that person has committed a crime.

gambiting 11y ago
I think it's completely normal and I expect people to be arrested for belonging to neo-nazi organisations, especially since simply displaying any nazi symbols is illegal where I live(as it should be). Is that scary?
- xentronium 11y ago
  Nazi symbols include e.g. swastikas which had long prior been traditional symbols in hinduism and other religions. Besides, how do you distinguish simply radical right-wing crackheads from neonazis using only their speeches/statements?
  - gambiting 11y ago
    I live right next to the former Auschwitz concentration camp - If some idiot pulls out a swastika during a demonstration and walks with the nazi salute I really don't believe he's simply displaying his affection for hinduism, and I really expect the police to arrest him.
    - xentronium 11y ago
      Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.
      - ckozlowski 11y ago
        The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
      - icanhackit 11y ago
        To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
        Scarblac 11y ago
        Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
        darkmarmot 11y ago
        Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
        Scarblac 11y ago
        I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
        zo1 11y ago
        "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
      - ta0967 11y ago
        I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.
      - hospes 11y ago
        Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?
    - necessity 11y ago
      What about socialist flags in Russia or somewhere else? They had concentration camps too.
      - robin_reala 11y ago
        Or the stars and stripes in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... Mind you, there’s a difference between a ‘concentration camp’ and a site of mass murder.
        necessity 11y ago
        My point is neither should be banned, not the other way around.
- ryandvm 11y ago
  > Is that scary? Yes. Because making other people's beliefs illegal is the first step towards forcibly supplying your own.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    Well.....Hitler should have been and in fact was forcibly stopped from practicing his beliefs. In my mind, people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped. Those people should be forcibly supplied other beliefs, just like rapists are forcibly put into prison and forced to accept a different set of rules from their own.
    - ryandvm 11y ago
      And what about atheists' beliefs in a country largely populated by theists? How should we treat them? It's easy to say that you think that speech that is almost universally repugnant should be illegal. The problem is that the benefit from doing so does not outweigh the risk that some day you may hold a socially repugnant belief of your own and find yourself legally silenced.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      "people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped." This is hate speech and is illegal in the US. In the US we draw a line between holding beliefs (or owning swastikas) and public hate speech or other illegal acts. This is similar to how it is not illegal to be a racist, but it is (often) illegal to discriminate.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
vacri 11y ago
What you describe isn't something the world has "become". It's always been that way. Even the "Home of the Free" imprisoned people for years for association with no evidence of a crime - famously stealing them from other countries and dumping them in Gitmo.
njharman 11y ago
World has become? Learn some history. Today (depending on country) on average is way, way, way more tolerant of groups not generally considered "acceptable" than in at any other time I can think of.
nkurz 11y ago
Here's a relevant recent article regarding arresting members of motorcycle gangs for being present at a shooting: http://www.gq.com/story/untold-story-texas-biker-gang-shoot-out http://www.gq.com/story/untold-story-texas-biker-gang-shoot-... "Some of the 177 arrested (including four women) languished in jail for weeks, others for months, before they could afford to post bail. All of them, even guys who hid out in the bathroom while bullets flew, face up to 99 years in jail."
rhino369 11y ago
I think it is very reasonable to distinguish between a political, social, or religious group and organized crime. The later is a conspiracy to commit crime.

It's very scary that the world has become a place that people think it's normal to arrest people just because they are a member of a group without any evidence that person has committed a crime.

gambiting 11y ago

I think it's completely normal and I expect people to be arrested for belonging to neo-nazi organisations, especially since simply displaying any nazi symbols is illegal where I live(as it should be). Is that scary?

xentronium 11y ago
Nazi symbols include e.g. swastikas which had long prior been traditional symbols in hinduism and other religions. Besides, how do you distinguish simply radical right-wing crackheads from neonazis using only their speeches/statements?
- gambiting 11y ago
  I live right next to the former Auschwitz concentration camp - If some idiot pulls out a swastika during a demonstration and walks with the nazi salute I really don't believe he's simply displaying his affection for hinduism, and I really expect the police to arrest him.
  - xentronium 11y ago
    Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.
    - ckozlowski 11y ago
      The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
    - icanhackit 11y ago
      To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
      - Scarblac 11y ago
        Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
        darkmarmot 11y ago
        Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
        Scarblac 11y ago
        I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
        zo1 11y ago
        "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
    - ta0967 11y ago
      I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.
    - hospes 11y ago
      Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?
  - necessity 11y ago
    What about socialist flags in Russia or somewhere else? They had concentration camps too.
    - robin_reala 11y ago
      Or the stars and stripes in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... Mind you, there’s a difference between a ‘concentration camp’ and a site of mass murder.
      - necessity 11y ago
        My point is neither should be banned, not the other way around.
ryandvm 11y ago
> Is that scary? Yes. Because making other people's beliefs illegal is the first step towards forcibly supplying your own.
- gambiting 11y ago
  Well.....Hitler should have been and in fact was forcibly stopped from practicing his beliefs. In my mind, people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped. Those people should be forcibly supplied other beliefs, just like rapists are forcibly put into prison and forced to accept a different set of rules from their own.
  - ryandvm 11y ago
    And what about atheists' beliefs in a country largely populated by theists? How should we treat them? It's easy to say that you think that speech that is almost universally repugnant should be illegal. The problem is that the benefit from doing so does not outweigh the risk that some day you may hold a socially repugnant belief of your own and find yourself legally silenced.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    "people who walk in front of Auschwitz with swastikas on their flags and shout how X minority should be exterminated also should be stopped." This is hate speech and is illegal in the US. In the US we draw a line between holding beliefs (or owning swastikas) and public hate speech or other illegal acts. This is similar to how it is not illegal to be a racist, but it is (often) illegal to discriminate.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

vacri 11y ago

What you describe isn't something the world has "become". It's always been that way. Even the "Home of the Free" imprisoned people for years for association with no evidence of a crime - famously stealing them from other countries and dumping them in Gitmo.

njharman 11y ago

World has become? Learn some history. Today (depending on country) on average is way, way, way more tolerant of groups not generally considered "acceptable" than in at any other time I can think of.

nkurz 11y ago

Here's a relevant recent article regarding arresting members of motorcycle gangs for being present at a shooting: http://www.gq.com/story/untold-story-texas-biker-gang-shoot-out http://www.gq.com/story/untold-story-texas-biker-gang-shoot-... "Some of the 177 arrested (including four women) languished in jail for weeks, others for months, before they could afford to post bail. All of them, even guys who hid out in the bathroom while bullets flew, face up to 99 years in jail."

rhino369 11y ago

I think it is very reasonable to distinguish between a political, social, or religious group and organized crime. The later is a conspiracy to commit crime.