ebrown_p wrote:The United States allows Nazi's free expression-- including the right to publish hate-filled literature and to have marches in residential areas. Europe doesn't.
Which policy is more effective. I seems like in spite of (or because) the legal prohibition Nazi-like behavior is much more a problem in Europe, from racial violence to obnoxious behavior at sporting events. Now granted this is not a perfect argument because of the history involved...
But, when the Nazi's (defended by a laywer provided by the liberal ACLU) won the right to hold a march in a city (I think it was in Ohio) the result was a very strong counter-protest and a frank discussion of racism. The anti-racist marchers significantly outnumbered the Nazi's
I am a strong proponent of free speech-- which to me is the one of most sacred things there is.
But even if you don't value this liberty the way I do, letting hatred be expreseed, and dealt with out in the open is clearly more effective than forcing it into the shadows where it can grow without being dealt with by society.
ebrown, I basically agree that many "evils" could probably be fought more effectively out in the open than by outlawing a certain behaviour, thereby forcing people into illegality.
Nevertheless, I will maintain the position that the question is just where you draw the line in the sand. That is, the line between somebody's right to do something and somebody's right to be protected from having something done to him. Both are unalienable rights, and I would find it quite hard to give one of them more importance than the other.
Let me go back to the example of legalizing prostitution. Society (or the state) has an interest in protecting anybody from being sexually exploited. Therefore, the state has to deal with the issue in one way or another. Assuming that prostitution will always exist, it seems that there are two methods of dealing with it. You can either 1) make prostitution illegal or 2) make prostitution legal.
Now, by making prostitution legal, you gain some very important advantages. You are taking it out of a criminal surrounding. You are creating a legally protected standing in society. In short, you can deal with it out in the open instead of forcing it into illegality where it can grow without being dealt with by society.
All this assuming, as I said, that prostitution will always exist.
Now, the same is true for a range of issues. For example: does the state have an interest in protecting its citizens from consuming alcohol? Does the state have an interest in protecting its citizens from consuming drugs?
In each case, prohibition will create an atmosphere where crime abounds, where you loose rather than gain control over the issue at hand.
And obviously the same is true to some extent when we are talking about the issue of Holocaust denial. And the issue is not free speech - it is really just the very isolated case of Holocaust denial. Now the essence of the Austrian law in question, the
Verbotsgesetz, can probably be summed up under the headline "Prohibiting the resurrection of the NSDAP".
And if you follow the rulings of the courts, then it does not, automatically, imply that you cannot dispute the Holocaust. It does not imply that Neo-Nazi marches are prohibited.
However, I think it is a manifestation of a nation's desire to protect its citizens. And it is drawing a line in the sand, about a very sensitive issue, in these respective countries.
