Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order. This was used against the Nazis, of course - but also against the Communist party.

So, ironically, under the current interpretation of 1A, communists have more freedom of speech and association in US than they do in Germany.

View on HN

> Let's talk about Germany, to give one example. In that country, the top court can outright declare political parties illegal, if it believes that they constitute a threat to the democratic order.

So what? Which country can't declare organisations illegal, if it determines them to be terrorist organisations? I'm pretty sure the USA can. So what does it matter if a terrorist organisation calls itself a "party"? (Didn't the Symbionese Liberation Army try exactly that?)

In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be. I much prefer the US model of free speech. Free speech only for ideas that the government doesn't consider dangerous isn't free speech at all.

> In the US, an idea can't be a "terrorist organization". In Germany, it can be

This is false.

What ideas are listed as terrorist organizations in the US?

Did anyone say there are any? Seems more plausible that it's the other half of the statement that's being denied.

The USA can't declare a party to be a "terrorist organization" solely on the basis of their political platform. It requires, at the very least, explicit incitement to terrorism. German law allows a party to be banned e.g. because it advocates replacing the Basic Law (via free and fair elections!), with no violence in the picture at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com