[jmj42]

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." --Voltaire (1770)

There is _nothing_ "to be said for not giving a platform and a voice to every nutjob out there." The balance must always lie with not restricting speech. If that means that a nutjob (as you call it), gets to say unpopular things, then so be it.

[davidw]

There's a difference between free speech, and sitting in parliament. By platform and voice, I meant that people in parliament are, well, kind of important. They get interviewed, they get on TV, they are in the papers, their words are on record, and so on.

[philwelch]

It's not a matter of restricting speech, it's a matter of restricting the power to govern. It's Europe that actually bans fascists from marching down the street bearing swastika banners, and yet they still get elected to parliaments.

[arethuza]

It is worth noting that some of the censorship of Nazi/Fascist ideas can be traced back to laws imposed by the Allies after WW2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Censorship_in_th...

Once these kind of rules get put in place what politician is realistically going to ask for them to be repealed?

[Personally, I would leave these laws in place while there are people alive who suffered directly from the Nazis].

[jmj42]

The power to govern is, in effect, speech, so by limiting ones ability gain political influence, you are limiting speech.

The ability of small political parties to gain representation in government is, I believe, a good thing, even (perhaps especially) when the views of those small parties are unpopular. Even those with extreme views have a right to express them.

Now, while I believe that all people have a right to speech, they do not have a right to be heard. There's an important distinction there. If someone cannot get elected due to extreme or unpopular views (I, for instance, will not vote anyone who holds various social stances that I consider detestable), that's acceptable. Not being able to get elected due to a mandated ban on your position is not something I can accept.

I'll grant you, the ability to gain office with extreme views has had some pretty dire consequences in the past, but I still cannot bring myself to believe that, even in the most extreme cases, limiting speech is acceptable.

[philwelch]

> The power to govern is, in effect, speech, so by limiting ones ability gain political influence, you are limiting speech.

What? No, this is ridiculous. The power to govern is the power to use organized violence to achieve your goals. Limiting the ability to gain and exercise political power is exactly the point of any kind of liberal form of government.