Four British neo-Nazis Jailed on Terrorism Charges

[Edge-]

Just for being a member? If they have evidence of her inciting violence or threatening others, sure that's grounds for prison time IMO. Just for being an edgy member though, can't agree with that level of thought-crimes.

If your thoughts are followed by actions, like voluntarily joining a known hate-group, then it's not "thought crime". It's a response to that persons voluntary association with a known hate-group.

[Ryme]

I actually lived in student accommodations with the supposed leader Ben Raymond. He had horrific b.o. and had a shrine to himself in his room.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Just for being a member? If they have evidence of her inciting violence or threatening others, sure that's grounds for prison time IMO. Just for being an edgy member though, can't agree with that level of thought-crimes.

Eh. That's the law. They broke 'em.

[Rune B]

Most countries, unfortunately, do not have free speech. That includes the UK.

Banning speech pushes extremists into underground echo chambers, where they never encounter critique, and where their martyr-complexes are reinforced by a very real political persecution.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh. That's the law. They broke 'em.

That's circular reasoning though. "They broke the law so they should be punished." Well, does the law make sense? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it principled? I would say no, no, no and no.

If you make laws that are broad enough, people will break them by their mere existence.

- - - Updated - - -

If your thoughts are followed by actions, like voluntarily joining a known hate-group, then it's not "thought crime". It's a response to that persons voluntary association with a known hate-group.

So who decides what's a hategroup? And why should hate be illegal? How do you ban an emotion?

[Edge-]

So who decides what's a hategroup?

We fought a world war to stop Nazi aggression and mass genocide. Is more clarity required?

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Most countries, unfortunately, do not have free speech. That includes the UK.

Banning speech pushes extremists into underground echo chambers, where they never encounter critique, and where their martyr-complexes are reinforced by a very real political persecution.

- - - Updated - - -



That's circular reasoning though. "They broke the law so they should be punished." Well, does the law make sense? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it principled? I would say no, no, no and no.

If you make laws that are broad enough, people will break them by their mere existence.

- - - Updated - - -



So who decides what's a hategroup? And why should hate be illegal? How do you ban an emotion?

Well. I mean, you're arguing for Nazis. And generally, a group that preaches hate and violence and was known for genocide is a good candidate for a hate group. This sorta thing shouldn't need discussion. Unless you're pro-Nazis.

[Rune B]

We fought a world war to stop Nazi aggression and mass genocide. Is more clarity required?

And what of religions? Christianity? Islam? Or the left? Communism? Are these all hategroups? Who decides?

[Edge-]

And what of religions? Christianity? Islam? Or the left? Communism? Are these all hategroups? Who decides?

Literally none of this is applicable in this thread.

Stop carrying water for Nazi's.

[Rune B]

Well. I mean, you're arguing for Nazis. And generally, a group that preaches hate and violence and was known for genocide is a good candidate for a hate group. This sorta thing shouldn't need discussion. Unless you're pro-Nazis.

Logical fallacy. I'm arguing for free speech and freedom of assembly. I would argue for communists, socialists, islamists and anyone else under the same logic.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally none of this is applicable in this thread.

Stop carrying water for Nazi's.

How are direct parallels to other ideologies not comparable? Isn't that the point of a comparison? If you exchange the word nazi with another group that has radical and violent ideas, how is it any different?

- - - Updated - - -

"A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. "

This encompasses SO many different groups.

[Edge-]

How are direct parallels to other ideologies not comparable? Isn't that the point of a comparison? If you exchange the word nazi with another group that has radical and violent ideas, how is it any different?

Drinking water is good for you.

Now, if you replace "water" with another transparent liquid, like bleach, how is that any different?

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Logical fallacy. I'm arguing for free speech and freedom of assembly. I would argue for communists, socialists, islamists and anyone else under the same logic.

- - - Updated - - -



How are direct parallels to other ideologies not comparable? Isn't that the point of a comparison? If you exchange the word nazi with another group that has radical and violent ideas, how is it any different?

Stop apologizing for Nazis. This law is specifically about Nazis. And there's a good reason people are against Nazis. "But what if it was about another group?" Then that law can be discussed with a new/different thread. But we're talking about this law.

[Rune B]

Drinking water is good for you.

Now, if you replace "water" with another transparent liquid, like bleach, how is that any different?

Who's off-topic now and building strawmen now, Mr Moderator? :-P

[Logwyn]

Drinking water is good for you.

Now, if you replace "water" with another transparent liquid, like bleach, how is that any different?

You can drink too much water though and it will kill you.

[Rune B]

Stop apologizing for Nazis. This law is specifically about Nazis. And there's a good reason people are against Nazis. "But what if it was about another group?" Then it can be discussed. But that's then and this is now.

Then why bother having a thread? Why discuss it at all?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

[Edge-]

Who's off-topic now and building strawmen now, Mr Moderator? :-P

It's a bad argument, I agree. I was highlighting that for you.

[zhero]

Being a part of a banned extremist group.

Would you be out here defending brown people for being arrested in the UK for their membership in ISIS?



See above.

Reading articles, or at least the literal first sentence, before having a kneejerk reaction to defend Nazi's would generally be a pretty good idea.

if they were helping fund isis, yes. considering ISIS is actively spreading terrorism across the world at the moment, and not just an ideology that isn't currently at war with the world

If your thoughts are followed by actions, like voluntarily joining a known hate-group, then it's not "thought crime". It's a response to that persons voluntary association with a known hate-group.

a hate group that only actual crime currently is their political ideology.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Then why bother having a thread? Why discuss it at all?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it.

Because someone was bringing up the news of said thing happening. If you wanna be lawful neutral, fine. But as for me, I'm more lawful good, especially when it comes to hate groups who have committed genocide and caused a world war.

- - - Updated - - -

if they were helping fund isis, yes. considering ISIS is actively spreading terrorism across the world at the moment, and not just an ideology that isn't currently at war with the world



a hate group that only actual crime currently is their political ideology.

A hate group with a very very long history of following up said ideology with action. So forgive me for not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[draynay]

a hate group that only actual crime currently is their political ideology.

Their only crime is crime! Won't someone think of the criminals!?

[JohnBrown1917]

And what of religions? Christianity? Islam? Or the left? Communism? Are these all hategroups? Who decides?

So you should just be free to threaten to kill people for how they are born?

[kail]

If your thoughts are followed by actions, like voluntarily joining a known hate-group, then it's not "thought crime". It's a response to that persons voluntary association with a known hate-group.

If the group doesn't exist as a name, it doesn't stop the discussion. That's the base concept of a group, people that share an interest. The group could be disgusting as fuck but such people exist and it shouldn't be a crime to hold dumb or hateful ideas.

- - - Updated - - -

Eh. That's the law. They broke 'em.

Sure, hence the "IMO". I don't agree with crimes that relate to banning ideas, interests or beliefs.