3 Years for denying Holocaust

Because, after all, you would take away the shared public space and hand it over to just one party (in order to voice their opinion) while restricting the other party (the protesters) to make use of the same public space in order to voice a dissenting opinion.

Here I think you've illustrated your misunderstanding of public speaking in America. The KKK does not have to share space with anyone during their public displays of their idiocy. The police presence is dramatically increased to insure this is the case. If memory serves; they failed to do an adequate job last year, and rioting and violence ensued. When done properly: Anyone attempting to cross over the protest line to get in that space is arrested for disturbing the peace. I can see how it sounds absurd to blame the protester of the hate-mongers, but that's how this freedom is regulated.

When Republicans or Democrats attempt to corrupt the other's gathering, the same solution is applied. In the case of President Bush; the secret service probably hasn't been taxed as hard insofar as defending against hysterical hatred in a very long time. I think it fair to say he is potentially in more danger than his recent predecessors so the Secret Service is no doubt increasing protections accordingly. That, is there job. While I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't mind seeing Bush retired J.F.K.-style it is irrational to think the Secret Service won't take steps to prevent it. In the hyper-polarized political arena of today, and in recognition of extremist measures some of our enemies employ, I have little doubt a President Kerry or President Hillary would be shielded with any less severity. Cordoning off two opposing hyper-polarized groups of hyper-partisans strikes me as a simple matter of common sense. Both the KKK and the overwhelming majority of dissenters from their beliefs are separated the same way, each with boundaries that must be adhered to or arrest is the result. This is no submarine as the press and/or any interested party is perfectly welcome to set up shop in either or both camps, should they not be there for the purpose of dissent.

I don't know how I can be any clearer so these answers will either have to suffice or we'll have to agree to disagree.

I (and the US Constution) draw a very clear line in the sand. Free Speech (according to me and to the US Constitution) is an inalienable right, and is not a matter of degree.

The line in the sand is this...

1) Any American has the right to publically express and defend any belief no matter how offensive.

2) Restrictions on the form of expression of these beliefs are only allowed when there is a overriding public interest.

Examples of #2 are direct threats ("I am going to kill you"), Libel ("Chad kills and eats puppies"), Malicious mischief with a direct and predictiable bad result ("There's a fire in the theater") and Incitement ("Let's go kill the Xandrians").

I just think that e.g. holding a sign with "No War for Oil" on it doesn't meet ebrown's #2 category. Therefore, getting arrested for doing so appears to be right in the face of the stated absolute freedom of speech in the US.

Doesn't mean I don't understand security concerns. Nevertheless, it's a restriction on the right of freedom of speech.

It can be trusted more than its neighbors -- support of Neonazi parties is consistently lower in Germany than in neighboring countries.

And that isn't because we impose extra legal restrictions on Neonazi parties. It's because an overwhelming majority of Germans, having considered their ideology, decided they want nothing to do with it. This, and not some legally imposed censorship, is our real protection against history repeating itself. The censorship in our penal code, which impedes public debate of Nazi ideas, will more likely erode than strengthen our main protection against Nazis.

dyslexia wrote:

Taking into account the history, I still think this is basically stupid. I would prefer to have nutjobs up front and on the stage where their idiocies can be judged than locked away and hidden.

I wonder if you would feel that way if you lived in Germany now; were Jewish, had been in the concentration camps and suffered horribly, had witnessed your mother, father, brother, sister and friends brutalized and murdered, knew that many Nazis' were not rounded up and punished but went on to become successful businessmen in the new Germany, and knew that a potentially consequential neo Nazi's movement still existed in modern Germany and elsewhere?

I am not arguing the validity of free speech per se.

Can Germany be likened to an ill tempered dog that cannot be trusted to not bite the postman? Does the risk to the postman die with the dog or do the puppies carry on the traditions?

Chumly wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Taking into account the history, I still think this is basically stupid. I would prefer to have nutjobs up front and on the stage where their idiocies can be judged than locked away and hidden.

I wonder if you would feel that way if you lived in Germany now; were Jewish, had been in the concentration camps and suffered horribly, had witnessed your mother, father, brother, sister and friends brutalized and murdered, knew that many Nazis' were not rounded up and punished but went on to become successful businessmen in the new Germany, and knew that a potentially consequential neo Nazi's movement still existed in modern Germany and elsewhere?

I am not arguing the validity of free speech per se.

Can Germany be likened to an ill tempered dog that cannot be trusted to not bite the postman? Does the risk to the postman die with the dog or do the puppies carry on the traditions?

This didn't make sense to me, Chumly. Making the speech illegal makes it EASIER to hide one's intentions.

I think they're safer seeing who is a bigot. If the dog in your postman analogy is silenced, he's more likely to bite the postman in the ass. If he's free to bark, the postman will see him coming.

Can Germany be likened to an ill tempered dog that cannot be trusted to not bite the postman? Does the risk to the postman die with the dog or do the puppies carry on the traditions?

A pity.

This means we have to take your word that you are an expert analogist?