NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Yes, next

and such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down in court.

When a person/party/ideology espouses beliefs that actively harms the rights it's citizens and as a danger to this country it should be banned, and the person(s) taken away.

Aureumterra III wrote:

Kannap wrote:
American democracy has already failed.

The richest and most powerful country on Earth?

A country can be rich, powerful, and undemocratic.

"Rich and powerful" doesn't make democracy immune to failing.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:and such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down in court.

When a person/party/ideology espouses beliefs that actively harms the rights it's citizens and as a danger to this country it should be banned, and the person(s) taken away.

Should QAnon people be banned from running for office? What about those who are pro life or anti LGBT rights and want it repealed? Your opening a very dangerous door with such a proposal like yours.

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:When a person/party/ideology espouses beliefs that actively harms the rights it's citizens and as a danger to this country it should be banned, and the person(s) taken away.

Should QAnon people be banned from running for office? What about those who are pro life or anti LGBT rights and want it repealed? Your opening a very dangerous door with such a proposal like yours.

Not really, it's only fair to keep as you continue calling them the crazies out.

Kannap wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:
If the American Nazi Party won the election despite the massively negative historical connotations that name carries then American democracy would already have long failed.

American democracy has already failed.

Optimistic. But probably accurate.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Should QAnon people be banned from running for office? What about those who are pro life or anti LGBT rights and want it repealed? Your opening a very dangerous door with such a proposal like yours.

Not really, it's only fair to keep as you continue calling them the crazies out.

How? If your going to bar people from running for office and use harming rights of people as the standard thats quite broad and direct violation of equal protection of the law. Freedom of speech means all speech not just speech you agree with.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Law's still on the books,

Well that's another thing that is shit about US law and particularly state law, is that law "on the books" which has been ruled invalid by a court, gone through all appeals, and is completely unenforceable ... stays on the books because sullen legislatures can't admit that they previously passed a useless piece of shit unconstitutional law. If some upstart complains that buggery or women riding astride a horse are still illegal "on the books", they're waved away by cowards and bigots who dread making the news for "legalizing pederasty" or "bestiality now legal ... but only for women!!" The more controversial it is, they less they want anything to do with striking it out of the book.

Sorry about the rave. Law being on the book does not mean a damn thing. Read the footnotes.

we even managed to defeat the bill to repeal it a few years back.

I shouldn't.

No, you should. An ideal democracy would allow all citizens to vote (including felons and children), and also allow them the widest possible choice of representatives. Including felons, children, and foreigners.

Well you repeating what you think I should do isn't particularly productive. But here we are.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Courts say otherwise. We’ve had this discussion before. If they did and they meet the requirements of the office there is no legal way whatsoever to stop them from taking the oath.

And you don't think that's a problem?

I don't. Legally excluding a party or ideology from politics, creates a blind spot for all other politicians. With no representative for Nazis in the parliament, the others cannot reckon with, understand, compromise, or even competently oppose that segment of the voting public. Information is power! The horrible, retrograde, totalitarian ideology of Nazism (and related right-wing ideologies) has informational power whether you like it or not. Letting it into the political arena is not surrendering to it, it is granting it the right to fight in the arena.

Locking an ideological enemy out of the arena, is nothing but cowardice, and effectively promotes them to champion and leader of all the others outside the political arena for one reason or another.

Get yourself a proportional representation system. Let the Nazis rejoice when their best and brightest get elected ("it's a foot in the door, now the people will hear our message and we will win 40% real soon now"). Watch as the major parties, minor parties, and independents beat the snot out of their Nazi representatives, gang up on them, mock them, call them names. This will be far more effective than the general public saying bad things about the Nazi voters. Parties aside, this is the point of representative democracy: non-hackers do not survive. If it's their ideology which is unacceptable, their parties do not survive.

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Not really, it's only fair to keep as you continue calling them the crazies out.

How? If your going to bar people from running for office and use harming rights of people as the standard thats quite broad and direct violation of equal protection of the law. Freedom of speech means all speech not just speech you agree with.

Hate speech is not free speech.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
How? If your going to bar people from running for office and use harming rights of people as the standard thats quite broad and direct violation of equal protection of the law. Freedom of speech means all speech not just speech you agree with.

Hate speech is not free speech.

The first amendment disagrees hence why the Nazi party or any other far right party hasn't been outlawed.

Based on your standard if Im on the Board of Elections and you run for office and I think your views on democracy and how procedure should be thrown out because you find it annoying or think the people dont deserve a vote do I get to bar you from the ballot?

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Hate speech is not free speech.

The first amendment disagrees hence why the Nazi party or any other far right party hasn't been outlawed.

Based on your standard if Im on the Board of Elections and you run for office and I think your views on democracy and how procedure should be thrown out because you find it annoying or think the people dont deserve a vote do I get to bar you from the ballot?

Honestly if you ended up on the board of elections the scenario is already fucked to pieces.

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Well that's another thing that is shit about US law and particularly state law, is that law "on the books" which has been ruled invalid by a court, gone through all appeals, and is completely unenforceable ... stays on the books because sullen legislatures can't admit that they previously passed a useless piece of shit unconstitutional law. If some upstart complains that buggery or women riding astride a horse are still illegal "on the books", they're waved away by cowards and bigots who dread making the news for "legalizing pederasty" or "bestiality now legal ... but only for women!!" The more controversial it is, they less they want anything to do with striking it out of the book.

Sorry about the rave. Law being on the book does not mean a damn thing. Read the footnotes.



No, you should. An ideal democracy would allow all citizens to vote (including felons and children), and also allow them the widest possible choice of representatives. Including felons, children, and foreigners.

Well you repeating what you think I should do isn't particularly productive. But here we are.

"Laws still on the books" is totally irrelevant. It has no force or effect.

Hmm. Your posts are kind of like that. I see what you wrote. But it has no force or effect. It's ineffectual!

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Hate speech is not free speech.

The first amendment disagrees hence why the Nazi party or any other far right party hasn't been outlawed.

Based on your standard if Im on the Board of Elections and you run for office and I think your views on democracy and how procedure should be thrown out because you find it annoying or think the people dont deserve a vote do I get to bar you from the ballot?

Vague amendment is vague.

Am I being hateful or threatening because I call for actual electoral reform? That's not the same as calling for the deaths of gays, blacks and Jews, it's incomparable.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Kannap wrote:
And you don't think that's a problem?

I don't. Legally excluding a party or ideology from politics, creates a blind spot for all other politicians. With no representative for Nazis in the parliament, the others cannot reckon with, understand, compromise, or even competently oppose that segment of the voting public. Information is power! The horrible, retrograde, totalitarian ideology of Nazism (and related right-wing ideologies) has informational power whether you like it or not. Letting it into the political arena is not surrendering to it, it is granting it the right to fight in the arena.

Locking an ideological enemy out of the arena, is nothing but cowardice, and effectively promotes them to champion and leader of all the others outside the political arena for one reason or another.

Get yourself a proportional representation system. Let the Nazis rejoice when their best and brightest get elected ("it's a foot in the door, now the people will hear our message and we will win 40% real soon now"). Watch as the major parties, minor parties, and independents beat the snot out of their Nazi representatives, gang up on them, mock them, call them names. This will be far more effective than the general public saying bad things about the Nazi voters. Parties aside, this is the point of representative democracy: non-hackers do not survive. If it's their ideology which is unacceptable, their parties do not survive.

You know, you probably should’ve picked an example which isn’t notorious for being an example of how democracy let the totalitarians win.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Well you repeating what you think I should do isn't particularly productive. But here we are.

"Laws still on the books" is totally irrelevant. It has no force or effect.

Hmm. Your posts are kind of like that. I see what you wrote. But it has no force or effect. It's ineffectual!

Yes, we established that last time.

*shrug* I'm not encouraging you to have horrifying beliefs though.

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Yes, next

and such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down in court. Freedom of speech applies to everyone not just speech you agree with.

Let me just go exercise my constitutional right to yell "fire" in a theater or "shooter" in a crowded mall. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to everyone and everything, we've already agreed on limitations. Trying to incite a panic, causing harm, or threatening people are places where we tend to draw that line. Why should people who will act on their harmful beliefs be allowed to run for office?

Every citizen has a right to run for office regardless of their beliefs.

We should fix that.

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
The first amendment disagrees hence why the Nazi party or any other far right party hasn't been outlawed.

Based on your standard if Im on the Board of Elections and you run for office and I think your views on democracy and how procedure should be thrown out because you find it annoying or think the people dont deserve a vote do I get to bar you from the ballot?

Vague amendment is vague.

Am I being hateful or threatening because I call for actual electoral reform? That's not the same as calling for the deaths of gays, blacks and Jews, it's incomparable.

Because the Constitution makes no mention of race.

Fucking with the electoral system is right up the Constitution's alley, and you have to tread carefully.

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:When a person/party/ideology espouses beliefs that actively harms the rights it's citizens and as a danger to this country it should be banned, and the person(s) taken away.

Should QAnon people be banned from running for office?

Yes, absolutely

What about those who are pro life or anti LGBT rights and want it repealed?

Yes, absolutely

Dresderstan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
The first amendment disagrees hence why the Nazi party or any other far right party hasn't been outlawed.

Based on your standard if Im on the Board of Elections and you run for office and I think your views on democracy and how procedure should be thrown out because you find it annoying or think the people dont deserve a vote do I get to bar you from the ballot?

Vague amendment is vague.

Am I being hateful or threatening because I call for actual electoral reform? That's not the same as calling for the deaths of gays, blacks and Jews, it's incomparable.

How is it vague? The qualifications to run for office are clear.

The only examples I can think of speech that is not allowed are threats against elected officials or workplaces, imminent lawless action and yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

No but I find your views a danger to democracy. Why can't I bar you from the ballot?

A number of Qanon supporters are running for office this year. Based on your standard they should be barred from running. The nominees where chosen in the primary. In a democracy shouldn't the people be able to decide if they want said person in office?

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Should QAnon people be banned from running for office?

Yes, absolutely

What about those who are pro life or anti LGBT rights and want it repealed?

Yes, absolutely

Anyone who doesn't share your beliefs shouldn't be allowed to run? That's not much of a democracy if your not going to allow opposing views to be represented or shared.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:and such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down in court. Freedom of speech applies to everyone not just speech you agree with.

Let me just go exercise my constitutional right to yell "fire" in a theater or "shooter" in a crowded mall.

That should seriously be legal. Anyone who sprains their ankle or thinks they caught a horrible disease from falling in the mall fountain, would be able to sue you. That's enough disincentive for you to speak so irresponsibly.

Kannap wrote:

San Lumen wrote:and such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional and would be struck down in court. Freedom of speech applies to everyone not just speech you agree with.

Let me just go exercise my constitutional right to yell "fire" in a theater or "shooter" in a crowded mall. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to everyone and everything, we've already agreed on limitations. Trying to incite a panic, causing harm, or threatening people are places where we tend to draw that line. Why should people who will act on their harmful beliefs be allowed to run for office?

Every citizen has a right to run for office regardless of their beliefs.

We should fix that.

To be fair, the fire in a theater thing is problematic, and probably legal.

But that point aside, we do restrict speech which causes eminent threat, Nazi rhetoric is by it's very nature eminently threatening.

Telconi wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Let me just go exercise my constitutional right to yell "fire" in a theater or "shooter" in a crowded mall. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to everyone and everything, we've already agreed on limitations. Trying to incite a panic, causing harm, or threatening people are places where we tend to draw that line. Why should people who will act on their harmful beliefs be allowed to run for office?



We should fix that.

To be fair, the fire in a theater thing is problematic, and probably legal.

But that point aside, we do restrict speech which causes eminent threat, Nazi rhetoric is by it's very nature eminently threatening.

Why was a literal Nazi allowed to run in Illinois in 2018 then?

San Lumen wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Yes, absolutely



Yes, absolutely

Anyone who doesn't share your beliefs shouldn't be allowed to run? That's not much of a democracy if your not going to allow opposing views to be represented or shared.

Forget it, San. It's Nazitown.

San Lumen wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:Vague amendment is vague.

Am I being hateful or threatening because I call for actual electoral reform? That's not the same as calling for the deaths of gays, blacks and Jews, it's incomparable.

How is it vague? The qualifications to run for office are clear.

The only examples I can think of speech that is not allowed are threats against elected officials or workplaces, imminent lawless action and yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

No but I find your views a danger to democracy. Why can't I bar you from the ballot?

A number of Qanon supporters are running for office this year. Based on your standard they should be barred from running. The nominees where chosen in the primary. In a democracy shouldn't the people be able to decide if they want said person in office?

Do you have the right to shout fire in a theater, or bomb on a plane? No? Then not all speech is protected, and the same applies to people who espouse hateful and dangerous beliefs.