Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why? Because you dont like his beliefs? You have no appreciation of freedom and how important that it apply to everyone equally. Freedom of thought and speech are precious and must be protected.
Well, let us then start at home. Start with getting rid of all laws that prevent people from expressing anything they desire in public. How do you think that will go? How will it go with you?
As right wing as Nigeria has became of late with all of the U.S. neoCON evangelicals stirring trouble there I'd say they would love some of Duke's ideas....just not ALL of them
maybe some neo-cons should be sent to Nigeria to survive Could make a new fun reality show.
Why? Because you dont like his beliefs? You have no appreciation of freedom and how important that it apply to everyone equally. Freedom of thought and speech are precious and must be protected.
Duke is free to spew his venom here in the USA. I find the man revolting and more than a bit stupid. None the less, so long as he does not advocate violence, the Bill of Rights protects him and that is fine.
In Germany, and some other places, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, which the article states he did, and to display Swastikas, SS symbols, etc. While I personally do not think even Germany needs this kind of law, they are a free country and a democracy and thus its their choice. Duke certainly knows that and the consequences.
Obviously Germany doesn't have the constitutional protection of freedom of speech that we have here. I take a back seat to nobody in my hostility to the odious Mr. Duke. Nevertheless, what advocates for freedom of speech have said in the United States for years is that you don't need a constitutional guarantee for popular speech, only for unpopular speech.
I'm not going to go over the whole thing, but here's a blog post I wrote about some of Duke's previous legal troubles that you might be interested in. Rational Resistance: Free David Duke!
In Germany, and some other places, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust, which the article states he did, and to display Swastikas, SS symbols, etc. While I personally do not think even Germany needs this kind of law, they are a free country and a democracy and thus its their choice.
Germany's anti-Nazi statutes have an interesting history, actually. The German constitution wasn't intended to be come permanent - it was drafted in great haste shortly after WWII, and it covered only the French, British and US occupied zones, where it was intended to act as a stopgap until the Soviet occupation of their zone would end and a proper constitution, covering all of Germany, could be drafted. In 1948 (IIRC), the idea of Germany banning Nazism and its symbols didn't sound far-fetched at all - the idea of the Germans ruling themselves was controversial enough. And besides, it would be temporary, right?
As we know now, it took 40 years of waiting before reunification - but when it happened, it happened really, really fast.
So in 1989, former West Germany had 40 years of legislation and legal precedence based on their existing Grundgesetz, Eastern Germany was in flux and nobody really knew how things would develop. One thing was for sure: They weren't going to sit around and wait for the Soviets to change their minds, so spending months or years d.cking around with a new constitution from the ground up was not going to happen.
So pragmatism won the day and all of Germany took on West Germany's constitution. Complete with its anti-Nazi statutes.
And of course, running on a platform of changing the German constitution to ensure freedom of speech for Nazis is not exactly going to go over well with the voters, so the Germans are kinda stuck with it.
Quote:
Duke certainly knows that and the consequences.
There's little doubt in my mind he was hoping for a dog-and-pony show of a trial, which is why I applaud the Germans just deporting his sorry ass.
Germany's anti-Nazi statutes have an interesting history, actually. The German constitution wasn't intended to be come permanent - it was drafted in great haste shortly after WWII, and it covered only the French, British and US occupied zones, where it was intended to act as a stopgap until the Soviet occupation of their zone would end and a proper constitution, covering all of Germany, could be drafted. In 1948 (IIRC), the idea of Germany banning Nazism and its symbols didn't sound far-fetched at all - the idea of the Germans ruling themselves was controversial enough. And besides, it would be temporary, right?
As we know now, it took 40 years of waiting before reunification - but when it happened, it happened really, really fast.
So in 1989, former West Germany had 40 years of legislation and legal precedence based on their existing Grundgesetz, Eastern Germany was in flux and nobody really knew how things would develop. One thing was for sure: They weren't going to sit around and wait for the Soviets to change their minds, so spending months or years d.cking around with a new constitution from the ground up was not going to happen.
So pragmatism won the day and all of Germany took on West Germany's constitution. Complete with its anti-Nazi statutes.
And of course, running on a platform of changing the German constitution to ensure freedom of speech for Nazis is not exactly going to go over well with the voters, so the Germans are kinda stuck with it.
There's little doubt in my mind he was hoping for a dog-and-pony show of a trial, which is why I applaud the Germans just deporting his sorry ass.
I know all that, but none the less an excellent synopsis.
Although the Nazis ( National Socialists ) combined traditional rightwing nationalism with newcoming ( at that time ) socialism,the reality was a Centrally Planned Economy ( CPE),with token private ownership...
In reality ,a "Soviet Union ,with the Nazis in the place of Soviets ( =commissioners ,in russian language...) & Hitler in place of Stalin...
Obviously Germany doesn't have the constitutional protection of freedom of speech that we have here. I take a back seat to nobody in my hostility to the odious Mr. Duke. Nevertheless, what advocates for freedom of speech have said in the United States for years is that you don't need a constitutional guarantee for popular speech, only for unpopular speech.
I'm not going to go over the whole thing, but here's a blog post I wrote about some of Duke's previous legal troubles that you might be interested in. Rational Resistance: Free David Duke!
You say he's imprisoned on suspicion of denying the Holocaust. Did he or didn't he?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could make a new fun reality show.