Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6351
PAGE 1 of 1

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 3:24 AM (P)

Hello,

I just read this on fox news:

Quote:

"Arizona state lawmakers approved emergency legislation that would order protesters to stay 300 feet away from the funeral. The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate is now headed to Gov. Jan Brewer for her expected signature.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the lead sponsor on the bill, said in an e-mail to colleagues before the bill was passed that the plan was to protect the victims' families from the "hateful protest" from the Westboro Baptist Church.

She said she has the support of the Senate president and Gov. Jan Brewer, and the bill will go into effect "immediately" once it's signed.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/11/arizonans-rally-prevent-wes
tboro-church-disruption-shooting-victims-funerals/#ixzz1Amt6Naxp"

The link was in an item posted by Wulf, and it has left me dismayed.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:46 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The link was in an item posted by Wulf, and it has left me dismayed.

I love free speech. I do.

But I'm surprised I'm not dismayed. 300 ft from a funeral doesn't seem so bad to me right now. I actually wish they had done that earlier for other funerals too. This is not principles talking. This is just how I'm feeling.

What a bad anarchist I'm turning out to be.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:14 AM (P)

I'm not surprised either, I'd certainly hate to be known as the guy who wants these families to suffer further so the westboro psuedobaptist can get their rocks off. That's how you'd be labeled if you opposed this, not as 'pro-freedom of speech.'

On a personal note, protesting a funeral is extremely disrespectful. I worry that this law could lead to more laws further limiting 'freedom of assembly' or 'free speech' but as is I see no problem with the proposed law.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:38 AM (P)

Hello,

I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.

I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

No, you're right. I agree with you.

This one time though, just when it comes to WBC, I WISH I didn't agree with you.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 6:48 AM (P)

With you on that Anthony...

these are dangerous precedents, as much because when I heard the restriction I kind of went "oh well" too. It's easy to let these things go when we think the people its being done to are abusing the right...but we probably shouldn't.

CUDA77

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:52 AM (P)

Anything that makes it so the WBC doesn't get it exactly their way is A-OK in my book.

Socialist and unashamed about it.

KWICKO

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:31 PM (P)

And I'm probably the jerk who's looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. They know it won't pass constitutional muster, they know it won't stand up to judicial review - but it will last UNTIL AFTER THE FUNERALS, which is all they want at the moment. It's purely a short-term "fix" they're after, not a long-term law or a precedent-setting one. But the problem with laws is, they DO tend to set precedent, and more than we're a "nation of laws" (as is so often cited), we're a nation of precedents.

It will be fought, but those fights will take time. Meanwhile, the law will stand while funerals and remembrances go forward.

I have problems with the precedent, but I have no real issues with the IDEA behind them. I get why they're doing it, but they really should admit that, when it suits them, they're completely willing to set aside portions of the Constitution they swore to uphold. It *IS* a darn pesky document at times, isn't it? So thorny and full of briars...

The Westboro Baptists are, to me, no different than those who take their guns to town hall meetings and Presidential appearances. Sure, they're within their "rights", strictly speaking, but I sure to wish they'd learn to exercise a bit of restraint.

This Space For Rent!

HARDWARE

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.
No, you're right. I agree with you.

This one time though, just when it comes to WBC, I WISH I didn't agree with you.

^This.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.

Ah, but not the only one, again, Mencken..
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Still, I think they're going about this all the wrong way - a cemetary or funeral home is private property, and thus can indeed choose who they allow on the premises.

That no one has used this particular tack against WBCs ill advised behavior is something that really annoys me - we can respect both the right of free expression and private property here, and in doing so accomplish all we wish without trampling on the Constitution or making laws which have such tremendous potential for abuse.

Of course, that presumes that the intention behind a lot of folks bitching isn't to foster the creation of those laws so that they CAN abuse them, later - and that is not a presumption I wish to make, cynical as I happen to be.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:47 PM (P)

Hello,

Any private property owner can do what they wish in terms of restricting property access and regulating entry- except where discrimination can be claimed against a business owner. However, the legislation in question does not lean on that fact, and does have an arbitrary distance figure on it that extends past private property.

It's a lot like the rules about how close you can get to a school with a weapon. It's possible to live at a house within the restricted zone. It's possible to be forced by virtue of geography to drive through the restricted zone.

100 yards is a long ways, and it means that if there's a funeral in progress, you can't be on any nearby public or private land with a protest sign or perhaps not even a protest on your lips.

The counter-protest wall-of-humans idea was a good solution to this problem that used freedom to stand against freedom. This law just dismays me, even if it proves to be temporary.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:40 PM (P)

Saw a piece in the paper yesterday- bunch of locals are organizing an " Angels' wings" thing- gonna build giant ( like 8 x 10) angels wings out of white cloth, carry them between the Westboros and the funeral parties. It aparrently started out as 1 college girl suggesting it online, she got 1000's o volunteers and some corporate backing.

If it happens-- if it works-- will be an elegant solution, and prove that the gov't doesn't have to do anything, that good people can stand up and do a right thing, solve a problem for themselves and others.

NIKI2

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 5:56 PM (P)

I'm with Cuda I'm afraid; anything that keeps the Westboro from their hideous, hateful activities is fine with me, and I don't find 300 feet from a funeral any problem. I don't see it as a slippery slope, especially if it won't last...I just hope EVERYWHERE the Westboro show up, the state does the same.

It's pure insanity (well, we already know they're insane)...a nine-year-old girl?!?!?!

Let's get real; this isn't about free speech, this is about the unconscionable acts of the Westboro only.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:47 PM (P)

"anything that keeps the Westboro from their hideous, hateful activities is fine with me"

Hello,

Those are the precise words that allow the government to strip our freedoms away. A lot of times we like to imagine the theft of our freedoms as a top-down effort, but I think seeing things that way is a terrible mistake.

Laws that strip our freedoms away seem to be bottom-up most of the time. Someone, somewhere, does something repugnant and awful. Then we DEMAND that the government do something about it. Anything that keeps X from performing their hideous, hateful activities is fine with us. Just get it done.

And so it gets done.

And that's always just fine, till it gets done to us.

A seed is not an Oak tree. But you don't get an Oak tree without the seed.

When we surrender to impulses like this, we are nurturing the seed and growing the tree that will cast us all in shadow.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:01 PM (P)

didn't a lot of protesters get rounded up before some Republican conventions too...I think I remember this

no charges were filed because no laws were broken, and there was nothing really legal about the detainment...but it happened, and it didn't really set any precedent for the rest of us exactly...

but it did what they wanted it to do in the short term.

Using such tactics for specific cases and then saying, "oops, that wasn't constitutional, or legal?" seems like a bad way for us to let our legal system run...even if we don't like the target.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
When we surrender to impulses like this, we are nurturing the seed and growing the tree that will cast us all in shadow.

Yep.

At least, that is what my head said. My heart is saying, "Thank God." Happens sometimes.

(And no, I'm not Anthony.)

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 8:19 PM (P)

Righteous, I agree, about a bad way to run a legal system.

Anthony, I don't live in a world of black and white. Westboro can still do it's unconscionable protesting 300 feet from a funeral, they're not being censored. Given the legislation pertains specifically to FUNERALS, I do not see it as a slippery slope.

There are some things in which fears of government abuse versus common sense come down on the side of common sense, in my opinion. It is just my opinion, but I don't think this instance is a forewarning of things to come, of slippery slopes.

Our laws are misused in many ways, by lawyers, by legislators, by police and others who use them to shield things which are wrong, but allowed by law. I find that much more disconcerting than a law to keep people from disrupting the ability of people to grieve at a funeral for the "protesters'" own filthy agenda.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:25 PM (P)

Hello,

It is no small irony.

In a post about free speech, I've found my thread title changed.

The slippery slope isn't just in the law. Sometimes it exists within the individual as well.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

SOCKPUPPET

Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:46 AM (P)

This whole thing is an obvious ploy.

Someone who opposes free speech, probably the media, but some arm of the powers that be, has been backing supporting securing and protecting these morons in the hopes that some family will get so upset they will sign on to some court case that will kill the first amendment.

The fact is that the phelps have broken many many laws in their protests, and they are being protected, so that this can become about Americans opposing free speech, also, the govt, provides them with security so no one will stomp them. We have a rit to free speech, but not free taxpayer funded security to harass others.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 13, 2011 5:44 AM (P)

Hey, Sockpuppet. Who are you again?

Did you just misspell "right" on purpose as part of your disguise?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

KWICKO

Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:34 PM (P)

As I've pointed out, I understand *WHY* they're doing it, and can even sympathize. But I am against the fact THAT they're doing this.

Are the WBC hideous and heinous? Sure. But at some level, so are liberals, according to the GOP. And so are conservatives, according to the Democrats.

Those who agree with banning the WBC and keeping them X distance away - are you also agreeing with the so-called "Free Speech Zones" at political conventions? Will you support the G20's "right" to not have their economic summit disturbed by the "heinous and hideous behavior" of protestors?

THAT is the slippery slope.

Not every repugnant behavior requires a law to be passed prohibiting it. Sometimes people just step forward with their own unique solutions to the problem at hand. Counter-protests, ridicule, "Angel's Wings"... all are solutions to the WBC, and none of them had to be passed into law to be used against the WBC.

This Space For Rent!

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Those who agree with banning the WBC and keeping them X distance away - are you also agreeing with the so-called "Free Speech Zones" at political conventions? Will you support the G20's "right" to not have their economic summit disturbed by the "heinous and hideous behavior" of protestors?

THAT is the slippery slope.

Well said!

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

KANEMAN

Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.

I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

I'm with Anthony on this. We should not infringe on our rights to keep a few grievers from being subjected to the abuse of rude religous assholes. See, we all know that once they get away with telling us where and when we can assemble, and start guessing what we will say and how we will act depending on the assemblers....we've got a problem. Sure it is tasteless(what these folks normally do) and they are the last people the family wants to hear, But the bigger picture is far greater than the feelings of a few......

NIKI2

Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:36 PM (P)

Well, I'm probably the lone holdout, but I still live in a world which isn't black and white, in which not everything that happens is a harbinger of government takeover.

If you think about it, whether I'm in favor of it or not, they DID have "free speech zones" when Bush was in power (and I'll bet at other times), and gee, we haven't slid down that "slippery slope" yet. I don't think the American people would put up with stuff like that--certainly not for long, we're too independent and mistrustful a bunch. But on this specific issue, I have no problem.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

KWICKO

Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Well, I'm probably the lone holdout, but I still live in a world which isn't black and white, in which not everything that happens is a harbinger of government takeover.

If you think about it, whether I'm in favor of it or not, they DID have "free speech zones" when Bush was in power (and I'll bet at other times), and gee, we haven't slid down that "slippery slope" yet. I don't think the American people would put up with stuff like that--certainly not for long, we're too independent and mistrustful a bunch. But on this specific issue, I have no problem.

Yes, we had them at other times - during Clinton's presidency, for one. So both sides are not immune to enforcing this kind of thing. As to whether or not we've slid down a slippery slope or not, the idea that some think it's no big deal - whether done by Clinton or Bush, federal government or state - tells me we have indeed begun to slip down that slope, and I'd prefer to give neither tacit nor explicit consent to continue that slide.

This Space For Rent!

NIKI2

Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:58 PM (P)

I disagree; each time it's been done, there's been public outcry. And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred, AND that the public didn't like it when it did happen, that we're not endangered by it. I think any serious curtailing of freedom of speech would raise a heckofa public outcry, myself. I don't know which is more vociferousl guarded, the first or the second amendment, but they're damned close. That is, despite either side screaming that their freedom of speech is being curtailed by the other side most of the time.

Sorry, I'll continue not to live in a black-and-white world...or, put another way: Moderation in all things. Extremism never benefits anyone.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,

Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s. In the 90's, cities began implementing free speech zones a little bit more. In the 2000's, they became routine with Bush. Now, people are accustomed to the idea of limiting embarrassing protests to areas out of the line of sight.

You may not see an erosion, but many others do. Erosion is by definition a slow, incremental process. It is not an avalanche.

Quote:
...there's been public outcry.

The point Mike made was not that there isn't public outcry, but that with each decade of free speech zones, there is less and less public outcry. Again, it's a slippery slope, not a slippery cliff.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:52 PM (P)

Geez, the legislation doesn't stop them from making their hideous protest, only stopping them from being within 300 metres of a funeral.

There protests are akin to abusive behaviour, in my view. If someone is continually abusive towards me, I can take legal action which limits them from approaching and talking to me. Abuse is not free speech.

KWICKO

Monday, January 17, 2011 12:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,

Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s. In the 90's, cities began implementing free speech zones a little bit more. In the 2000's, they became routine with Bush. Now, people are accustomed to the idea of limiting embarrassing protests to areas out of the line of sight.

You may not see an erosion, but many others do. Erosion is by definition a slow, incremental process. It is not an avalanche.

Quote:
...there's been public outcry.
The point Mike made was not that there isn't public outcry, but that with each decade of free speech zones, there is less and less public outcry. Again, it's a slippery slope, not a slippery cliff.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Perfectly put. Thank you!

This Space For Rent!

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 17, 2011 3:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.

What is the difference between abuse and dissent?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 17, 2011 3:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.
What is the difference between abuse and dissent?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

abuse=

to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.
5.
Obsolete . to deceive or mislead.

dissent =
to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often fol. by from ): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.
2.
to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
3.
to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

NIKI2

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:31 PM (P)

Quote:
There (sic) protests are akin to abusive behaviour, in my view. If someone is continually abusive towards me, I can take legal action which limits them from approaching and talking to me. Abuse is not free speech.

My opinion, too. Also the difference between dissent and abusing the rights of free speech. Their intent is not to “dissent”, it is purely and totally to harass, nothing more.

Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not content”of expression.

Westboro isn’t assembling to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, obviously.

But as to it starting in the '60s and '70s, I sure never encountered it done by the GOVERNMENT, and what I found was

Quote:
Some universities resorted to limiting student protests and demonstrations to certain select areas of the campus called free-speech zones in the 1960s and early 1970s

The first mention I find of the GOVERNMENT using them is

Quote:
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator against an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage." "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.

I find reference to them being expanded a lot by Bush:

Quote:
The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011711a.html

And yes, Obama has continued the practice (as he had so many of Bush’s other infringements on our civil rights), you’ll get no argument from me. No doubt future Presidents will as well; once one of them starts something, few future ones are willing to give it up. That's the danger of setting precedent, and in that I agree. Another lovely thing we can thank Bush for.

But I hold my ground that limiting the Westboro nuts (especially as it's probably going to be found unconstitutional and done away with) isn't going to lead to any slippery slope...Bush's expansion of them has done more along those lines.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:52 PM (P)

ok i type in a hurry sometimes....

NIKI2

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:59 PM (P)

What was wrong with what you typed? I think it was right on in explaining the definition, so it answered the question.

I looked into a bit more deeply...was typing as you posted this last, just FYI.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 17, 2011 9:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But as to it starting in the '60s and '70s, I sure never encountered it done by the GOVERNMENT, and what I found was
Quote:
Some universities resorted to limiting student protests and demonstrations to certain select areas of the campus called free-speech zones in the 1960s and early 1970s
The first mention I find of the GOVERNMENT using them is
Quote:
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted.

Niki, that's exactly what I said.

Quote:
CTS: Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s.

You write as if you're correcting me, but there is nothing to correct.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 17, 2011 10:04 PM (P)

I think things would be a lot better if..

1. Fred Phelps was allowed to protest.

2. The cops all got the flu at the same time.

3. Lime and shovels were put on sale, or free.

Just saying...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 17, 2011 10:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.

Not applicable, because free speech is not an issue of authority.

Quote:
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.

This sounds like physical harm and injury. It is very hard to prove physical harm resulting from words, but usually, that falls under child emotional abuse or hate crimes. There are already laws against that. This type of speech would not be subject to free speech zones, because they would already be illegal everywhere.

Quote:
to commit sexual assault upon.

Not applicable.

So we are really talking about this definition:

Quote:
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.

Now let's contrast this against "dissent."

Quote:
to differ in sentiment or opinion,...
to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government...
to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

OK, it pretty much means "to disagree," esp with those in authority.

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

-------

The differences are subjective, mostly based on whether the audience agrees with the message and its delivery. It is impossible to legally distinguish between the two.

There are some laws against verbal abuse, mostly dealing with the abuse of authority (such as verbal abuse by a boss) or defamation in a publication (very difficult to prove). But there are no laws against someone calling you "stupid" to your face. As abusive as Kaneman is towards Niki, there are no laws making what he says illegal, unless you want to pursue his threats of rape as assault.

The fact of the matter is, NEITHER verbal "abuse" nor verbal "dissent" (of the protesting type) is illegal under United States law. What we've done is simply put legal limitations of either "abuse" or "dissent," by limiting any undesirable messages to areas outside the line of sight.

The slippery slope is this: today I might agree the message is undesirable. Tomorrow, I might not, but it will be too late for my desirable message to be seen.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:00 AM (P)

Sorry CTTS, I misread, I thought you wrote that the government had been using free-speech zones since the '60s, etc. Mea culpa.

While I recognize the difference between the two terms, I still don't see Westboro as deserving the right to put their little play on. They aren't "dissenting" against anything, nor are they "protesting", etc., etc. They are merely CONDEMNING, in the worst possible way, the individuals at a funeral. I just don't believe this represents a slippery slope. Just my opinion, nothing more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

KWICKO

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

I'd say those statements are neither abuse nor dissent; they're just plain truth.

I'd further add that for the most part, they apply to Obama as well. Sure, he didn't "take us to war", but he sure as fuck didn't take us OUT of it, either.

This Space For Rent!

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry CTTS, I misread,

Ah, yeah, ok. That happens. No prob.

Quote:
I still don't see Westboro as deserving the right to put their little play on.

Neither does the KKK or NAMBLA. But we can't place certain groups out of sight cause they're disgusting and vomit inducing to most people. Once we get used to that, it'll be war and tax protesters next in that free speech zone. Those folk piss off a lot of Americans too, you know.

Imagine that liberal activists go through the trouble and expense of traveling to a Tea Party convention to protest the Tea Party agenda. They show up to protest on the public sidewalk outside the hotel. But then they are forced 100 yards away, far out of the traffic of the convention. One football field away. The excuse for the move? "Libtards do nothing but condemn us all day long. We don't want to see their ugly, abusive messages."

How would you feel about that?

It's the classic corollary to the Golden Rule, right? Don't do unto others if you don't want it done unto you?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:04 PM (P)

Quote:
Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

No. He’d hear them whether at an event or otherwise, just as Obama has heard al the abuse about his not being an American, being a socialist, Hitler, hating America, etc. There’s no reason politicians shouldn’t hear anything said about them. But that’s not the point. The point should be:

Should grieving families have to endure people screaming “God hates you” and “I’m glad your daughter was killed” by people who have NOTHING to do with their daughter’s death but only want to make a scene to get their point across that America is evil because we don’t kill homosexuals. That has NO comparison to the other.

But if you’re taking about free-speech zones and politicians, I’m against them, for the reasons I stated in the beginning.

CTTS, I never said I liked free-speech zones. And of course everyone knows about NAMBLA and the KKK. As far as I know, neither has demonstrated somewhere that has nothing to do with their issue but specifically targets a group totally uninvolved in their issues (whatever those may be!). They are as much exhibitionists as Westboro, and I have no problem with their free speech. I have a problem with Westboro because they have no “grievances” to be redressed and they do what they do for no other reason than to abuse others and get attention. Getting attention is fine with me, but deliberately targeting those they do is unconscionable TO ME.

Like I said, it’s my opinion, nothing more. I don’t expect to change anyone else’s mind and I don’t expect anyone to change mine ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. On this issue only; that I have no problem with keeping the Westboros away from a child’s funeral, especially as it’s a temporary measure which will not stand up in court, and I don’t think it is a step down the slippery slope.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Getting attention is fine with me, but deliberately targeting those they do is unconscionable TO ME.

Targeting those they do is unconscionable to everyone on this board, Niki.

Nobody here likes them or what they say. I think that is one more thing we ALL agree on, now that "Jessica Alba is hot" is no longer unanimous.

All we got now for consensus is 1) Firefly rules, and 2) WBC is intolerable and disgusting.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:23 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
What was wrong with what you typed? I think it was right on in explaining the definition, so it answered the question.

I looked into a bit more deeply...was typing as you posted this last, just FYI.

I just noticed a typo

NIKI2

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:59 PM (P)

CTTS: You're no doubt right. And I certainly vote for those two things!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, January 21, 2011 9:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

-------

The differences are subjective, mostly based on whether the audience agrees with the message and its delivery. It is impossible to legally distinguish between the two.

There are some laws against verbal abuse, mostly dealing with the abuse of authority (such as verbal abuse by a boss) or defamation in a publication (very difficult to prove). But there are no laws against someone calling you "stupid" to your face. As abusive as Kaneman is towards Niki, there are no laws making what he says illegal, unless you want to pursue his threats of rape as assault.

The fact of the matter is, NEITHER verbal "abuse" nor verbal "dissent" (of the protesting type) is illegal under United States law. What we've done is simply put legal limitations of either "abuse" or "dissent," by limiting any undesirable messages to areas outside the line of sight.

The slippery slope is this: today I might agree the message is undesirable. Tomorrow, I might not, but it will be too late for my desirable message to be seen.

So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?

if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?

If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front, and then wipe my arse with the American flag, all in protest at your foreign policy, of course, are you saying that there would be no legal repercussions for me. Excellent, I'm on my way to the States right now< Gonna buy a glock from Wulf when I get there too.

Nothing is preventing these people from airing their views. They can state them freely, write about them, lobby their representative. None of these will land them in jail.

People in public life, particularly politicans, are usually expected to be fairly robust about how the general public treats them, and for politcians, I guess that is fair enough. They make decisions on our behalf, so they need to be able to tolerate scrutiny, criticism and protest. But these are private citizens, grieving private citizens. It seems to me that the law simply acts like a restraining order, preventing protesters from getting to close. I can't see that it is an issue with free speech at all.

As for the slippery slope, that term is so overused and misleading in all kinds of situations. My mother used to say that marijuana smoking put you onto the 'slippery slope' to heroin, but you see that isn't true all of the time either.

Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say,

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?

No.

Quote:
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?

No.

Quote:
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,

There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution.

Tell that to the Germans who lived through the Third Reich.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi_Germany

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Fact is tyranny CAN happen with a slippery slope.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?
No.

Quote:
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?
No.

Quote:
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,
There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.

I'd also add the caveat of preserving the ability to pass through the lands being protested upon. Protestation should not be used to trap people in an area.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:11 PM (P)

"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.

Yes, thank you for bringing this up.

If you protest on the public sidewalk outside my house or the church, there are no laws to stop you.

You can also protest on your own private land.

I once saw a picture of a sign posted in one guy's front yard. It had an arrow pointing to his neighbor's house, and said, "I own guns. My neighbor believes in gun control and does not own any guns."

Many people found that sign dangerous and abusive. But there are no laws to make him take it down.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 21, 2011 2:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.
Yes, thank you for bringing this up.

If you protest on the public sidewalk outside my house or the church, there are no laws to stop you.

You can also protest on your own private land.

I once saw a picture of a sign posted in one guy's front yard. It had an arrow pointing to his neighbor's house, and said, "I own guns. My neighbor believes in gun control and does not own any guns."

Many people found that sign dangerous and abusive. But there are no laws to make him take it down.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

I can see it now.

"My neighbor owns guns. He is not home between the hours of 8AM and 5PM on Weekdays, and spends his weekends Fishing at his fishing lodge."

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 21, 2011 3:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"My neighbor owns guns. He is not home between the hours of 8AM and 5PM on Weekdays, and spends his weekends Fishing at his fishing lodge."

LOL.

Ouch. Remind me not to cross you, Anthony.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, January 21, 2011 9:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution.
Tell that to the Germans who lived through the Third Reich.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi_Germany

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Fact is tyranny CAN happen with a slippery slope.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

You think the Third Reich happened kind of slowly and comfortably??????? That Germany was a nice stable country that suddenly introduced a bit too much legislation?

The situation for Germany in the early part of the 20th century was that it was a country of chaos and upheavel. They had lived through a a war that they lost, where millions died; their system of government collapsed; as a result of the Treaty of Versaille and the Great Depression, their economy completely totally collapsed. Not to forget the effect of the death toll from the Spanish flu.

There was basically a civil war for years between the right and left factions in Germany for control of the country.

Germany was classically ripe for tyranny given these conditions. It was never that a madman got his hands on the country, it would have be another madman if it wasn't Hitler.

Not a slippery slope as far as I can see, but a freefall.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, January 21, 2011 9:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?
No.

Quote:
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?
No.

Quote:
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,
There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

Hello,

There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.

I'd also add the caveat of preserving the ability to pass through the lands being protested upon. Protestation should not be used to trap people in an area.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Oh I'd be doing it on public land, just outside of your house.

You see I find it hard to believe that you'd have no legal recourse in these matters, because I know that you have restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws. I know you have laws about protesting. They may vary from state to state but they exist.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, January 21, 2011 10:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 21, 2011 10:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You see I find it hard to believe that you'd have no legal recourse in these matters, because I know that you have restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws.

Those laws would only apply if you protested me more than once.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Friday, January 21, 2011 10:34 PM (P)

I agree with what Magons said about tyranny, and that the Third Reich is a bad example:

Quote:
The situation for Germany in the early part of the 20th century was that it was a country of chaos and upheavel. They had lived through a a war that they lost, where millions died; their system of government collapsed; as a result of the Treaty of Versaille and the Great Depression, their economy completely totally collapsed. Not to forget the effect of the death toll from the Spanish flu.

There was basically a civil war for years between the right and left factions in Germany for control of the country.

Germany was classically ripe for tyranny given these conditions. It was never that a madman got his hands on the country, it would have be another madman if it wasn't Hitler.

One of the reasons I think those in America who advocate (if they’re even serious and not just blathering candidates) revolution would end up getting something WORSE than what they are unhappy with.

Good point, too, Magons, in that we DO have

Quote:
restraining orders and I know that you have harrassment and stalking laws

So all speech isn't necessarily "free". We also have libel laws, and more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:55 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

Hello,

I am the first generation of my family to be born in the United States. My ancestors are Cuban and Spanish.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."

Hello,

The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

What slippery slope did they have? I thought your ancestors overthrew their British rulers. A monarchy was not a system of government that resulted from a slippery slope, in fact you might say conversely that democracy is more of a slippery slope that tyranny is.

I think your ancestors were concerned that having devolved powers, they might end up have it concentrate again. Quite rightly as well, because post revolution one of the things that tended to happen was a return to the old system or something similiar ie Ol Oliver Cromwell and the subsequent Reformation.

Hello,

I am the first generation of my family to be born in the United States. My ancestors are Cuban and Spanish.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

Sorry for making assumptions.

And not knowing a whole lot about those parts of the world, apart from once holidaying in Spain (yay for tapas and sangria), haven't both those countries been involved in civil wars and/or revolutions prior to their fascist/communist governments? Which was my initial point about not being part of a slippery slope.

It's also my understanding that neither country could be considered a paradigm of democratic values prior to civil war/revolution.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:33 AM (P)

Hello,

Quite frankly, I think most every country I can think of has had a revolution at some point prior to its current form of government.

However, the post-revolution government is often not instantly tyrannical. There is sometimes a period of stability and improved quality of life. Things turn. Conditions decline by inches, then yards. Eventually people wake up one morning and find conditions no longer tolerable. It wasn't like this on day 1. But on day 1000 you can't remember why you ever thought you could live like this. But it wasn't always like this. It used to be better. It can be better again.

Enough people feel this way, and you get another revolution. Sometimes the new boss is instantly tyrannical and horrible. Sometimes he's just fine. And then things start to slide.

Both situations exist in the history of my people. Revolutions with instant tyrants, and revolutions that give improved, stable government where situations gradually deteriorate until the people will no longer tolerate it.

I'd like to say the current government of Spain will be stable, prosperous, and avoid this path. However, like the United States, the current government is too young for any determination about its long-term health to be practical.

I am glad you are pleased with the development of your own young nation, and do not see the likelihood of this kind of deterioration into tyranny where you live.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:44 AM (P)

oh I don't say that tyranny will not happen, I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all. What tends to happen is that a combination of events leave a country vulnerable, particularly if those events are catastrophic. I see that extremism tends to flourish in environments where there is great upheaval and horrible living conditions. I see that civil war and or revolution then produces more unheaval as the extremists battle it out with one another and take increasing control to ensure that the other side stays out of power. A lot of times the population then justifies the use martial law, suspension of habeus corpus, use of survelliance, torture and other heinous abuses of their government as being necessary to combat evil (ie those extremists not on the side of the government). I'm see that is all too possible.

Tyranny also tends to exist (but not exclusively) in those places which have yet to experience a period of stable democracy. And democracy itself needs quite a degree of stability in order to succeed. I think a lot of places in the world just haven't got there yet.

So my issue is not that tyranny isn't possible, it just doesn't tend to arise in the way that people here claim it may. The 'slippery slope' argument is often used by extremists who see no possibility for middle ground or compromise. Eg public 'socialised' health will lead to death panels. Yeah right, an extremist argument. Or less extreme, but still not logical arguments eg any restrictions on gun ownership means that the government will soon ban private ownership. Stopping people from harrassing mourners will lead to an undermining of free speech.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:50 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
... I just don't think that the slippery slope from stable government to tyranny happens very often, if at all.

Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?

What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.

Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?

None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.

The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.

This is why I contend the Third Reich is a result of a "slippery slope" and you contend it is a result of catastrophic events. The truth is, BOTH occurred. Dismissing the "slippery" side of history and blaming the resulting tyranny entirely on "revolutions" does not take into account the WHOLE picture.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:27 PM (P)

Hello,

I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

Ah. Evil governments are born evil, not born good then slowly corrupted to the Dark Side. Interesting.

Thanks for explaining it, Anthony.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

BYTEMITE

Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:03 PM (P)

Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.

But I'm shocked that she has such trust in the US Government. Especially because, as a foreign ally with a close relationship, they have the most to lose by underestimating just how dangerous a Republic in-name-only can be.

The general population of the United States, democrat and republican, right wing and left wing have diminishingly little say in the policy and direction of our country. The reason all of us seem so afraid - of the other wing, of the government, is because we're afraid that we're losing control of our own lives, the ability to live the way we want to.

An non-christian and a feminist and a pro-choice person looks at some on the right wing and thinks, if they get into office, all of the rights/privileges I have fought for will be taken away. A politically incorrect person who hates all the frooferah and not-telling-it-like-it-is who owns guns and wants to live a traditional Christian life looks at those other guys and thinks if they get in power they'll take away what's important to ME. And then there's people stuck in the middle.

The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome. Worse yet, when the government trades sides the promised changes aren't forthcoming. So the government continues on the same track as always, and the general population becomes even more worried and feels even more disenfranchised.

And that's not even getting into military bases on foreign soil which might directly affect Magons. The world, and American citizens, have everything to fear from the US government.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, January 22, 2011 9:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Think we should let Magons explain her own point of view.

I have no doubt Magon will correct Anthony if he is wrong. Either way, Anthony just proposed an interesting position.

Quote:

...The government has become so powerful and so part of everyday life that the average citizen believes their only hope to have the life they want is to throw in with one side or another. I take this as evidence the government has become TOO powerful, too meddlesome.

Very astute observation, and nicely summarized too. It sounds right to me.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:06 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Under what circumstances would you be willing to concede it is happening? The USA is a stable democracy right now, yes? What if in 10 years, it is a tyranny? Would you concede then? No?

Of course, I'd be an idiot to be arguing differently. I'm always open to the possibility that all my views are completely wrong. I hope I am right, for you sakes.

Quote:
What if another terrorist attack happens, and more laws are made to curb civil liberties? The economy crashes, and grocery shelves are empty. Hungry, unemployed people protest, both peacefully, through riots, and through domestic terrorism (different groups). Not being able to distinguish between the groups, all protests are shut down through martial law. US military is deployed domestically to control civil unrest. Even more laws are made to control the population. Guns and all weapons are banned. Domestic guerilla warfare against authorities and civilians become routine, like in Iraq. Political processes and elections become tightly controlled and limited. Political opponents and law violators are routinely arrested as enemy combatants and terrorism suspects, detained without due process.

Would you concede then? Or would you say, no, that happened because of catastrophic events, not because of a "slippery slope"?

I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.

Quote:
None of us are arguing that the "slippery slope" is always peaceful without catastrophic interference. Slippery slopes to tyranny always occur in conjunction with catastrophic events. Govts like to springboard off of catastrophes and leverage disasters to gain more control--for prevention purposes of course. Perhaps the name should rather be "slippery steps"--slope, sudden drop from crisis, slope, sudden drop from crisis, and so forth.

We'd pretty much be in agreement on that.

Quote:
The danger of slippery slopes is it makes the population accustomed to the loss of more and more liberties until the final sudden drop, when it becomes too late to change the country. Even then, there will still be many defenders of govt policies, who believe the govt is justified in taking these draconian steps. Just like there are plenty of people who defend what the TSA is doing at airports. There will always be people who value security over freedom, no matter how much freedom is lost. It doesn't matter if other people are imprisoned simply for speaking, dying, going hungry, being tortured--if they are in jail, they must be bad people.

I can see something of what you are saying. However, I would like to point out that many countries, probably most countries have more laws than the US on a number of things. Europe is very tightly governed, but it isn't a tyranny. I think we probably have heaps more laws, but we aren't a tyranny, we still have scruitinised and accountable governments. A bit of a nanny state, I'll grant you, but they are not the same thing. In fact, from what I understand Europe and Australia sound like they are less draconian in many ways, less people in jail, lighter sentencing, no capital punishment, not as aggressive police.

I'm not saying to not be vigiliant about laws, there are a lot that horrify me, a lot that happened in the wake of 9/11 particuarly. But I think you can sometimes find middle ground between laws that are protective of victims and laws that could be used to persecute those who dissent. I think the example in this thread is the former.

I'd also like to point out that one of things that tyrannies tend to do is throw out laws and constitutions and disregard current processes of governing, so in the end if you find yourself living in a police state, your constitutional rights are not going to protect you.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

--Anthony

Er, no.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:27 PM (P)

Hello,

I am confused.

Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...

Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I am confused.

Do you believe in the 'slope' or progression of restrictions leading to a tyrannical environment...

Or do you believe in sudden onset tyranny?

--Anthony

Your post was a complete misrepresentation of my views. To elaborate...

Quote:
I think Magons believes that there is no gradient of liberty deterioration. No slope. There are good laws, and then there are laws that catastrophically destroy liberty.

I never said there are good laws and laws that destroy liberty. I don't see things this black and white.

Quote:
She does not see a chain of gradual acceptance of laws that are more and more restrictive of liberty, culminating in tyranny.

I said it was unlikely that stable democracies would gradually legislate themselves into tyranny, that tyranny needed certain circumstances, often catasprophic ones, to come into existence.

Quote:
So, from what I understand, if the U.S. became a tyranny in 10 years, she would not see that tyranny as a progression or slope of events, but rather it would spring forth fully formed from nothing more than general dissatisfaction and suffering in the populace.

I said no such thing. As above, tyranny usually requires certain conditions to be able to replace a stable democracy; not just dissatisfaction, but war, economic collapse, or some other catastrophic events - to extrapolate they could include, terrorist attacks, pandemics, dramatic affects of climate change, running out of fossil fuels etc etc. I think you'd probably need to see a couple in tandem with one another as well, not just a terrorist attack.

Quote:
A biogenesis of evil, so to speak.

Nope, said nothing about evil.

And just to continue on a bit, that if the US was a tyranny in 10 years time, it would probably be because the current political discourse has led to some extremists deciding to take '2nd amendment solutions' and bringing about a subsequent civil war, not because there was a law introduced preventing people from protesting at a funeral.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:49 PM (P)

Hello,

So to be clear, you do believe in sudden onset tyranny, as the result of catastrophic phenomenon.

You do not believe in gradual deterioration into tyranny, via laws that abrade or constrict liberty over time.

Is that right?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:56 PM (P)

Anthony, I don't 'believe' anything with religious fervour. As I have said numerous times now - and frankly this will be the last - I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about. I've said nothing about 'sudden onset' or 'springing into existence' or 'biogenesis of evil'

If you are finding it hard to comprehend my views, then I give up. I must be a lousy communicator, as I thought it was pretty clear.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:04 PM (P)

Hello Magons,

I do not mean to frustrate you. I have been trying to distill your point of view for the consumption of my mind.

You seem to be rejecting the idea of progressive tyrannical legislation.

You seem to be also rejecting the idea of sudden tyranny.

And you seem to be suggesting that tyranny will tend to happen due to one or more of a series of exceptionally bad events.

I am trying to reconcile these positions for absorption into my consciousness.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:29 PM (P)

Yes, I was feeling frustrated anthony, but I've had my breakfast and now I feel better.

Really my argument is nothing to do with the timing, sudden or otherwise, of the onset, but to do with the conditions needed for tyranny to happen. You may well be able to legislate yourself into tyranny, but I don't see that it has happened yet.

If I take some of what I consider to be the biggest tyrannies of the 20th century...

The Third Reich, as per my earlier post. I reject the idea put by CTS that it was a combination of 'slippery slope' and catastrophe, simply because Germany had not had a stable system of government for many years. The time frame does not matter, nor that it got progressively worse. The issue is that it was not a stable country that introduced a bit too much legislation. Hope I am being clear.

Stalinist Russia - Well poor old Russia had always been a tyranny. It certainly was under the Tsarist regime, some Tsars being worse than others, but most being pretty bad. It then had to content with war, revolution, famine, upheaval, another war....how much of the population was wiped out in this period. Millions...in both wars. In WW2 I do believe the Soviets suffered the worst losses. The wars on the Eastern front, made the West look like a picnic in the park in terms of scale of casualties and sheer brutality. so not exactly a slippery slope there.

Cambodia = under the Khmer Rouge, it wasn't exactly a stable region anyway, given the post colonial wars that were happening in the region and I wont go into the whys and hows, but they didn't exactly come to power under legislation. they basically over threw the monarchy and sank the country into lawlessness, murdering anyone that opposed them. No constitution, rule of law or otherwise would have protected the citizens from the Khmer Rouge,

Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:02 AM (P)

"Anthony, if you have some examples of countries that have legislated themselves from peaceful, stable governance into tyranny, then I'd be interested to read about them."

Hello,

I am thinking deeply about this. I am first trying to identify peaceful, stable governments that have existed for long periods of time.

So far I have not found one. I will let you know.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 23, 2011 1:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'd say that was exactly my argument, that tyranny happens in those kind of circumstances.

Let's recap then. The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

You make a good point that European countries have much more legislation than Americans. What is different about Americans, both the govt and the people?

I'll tell you. We're more disobedient. Not only that, we're more violently disobedient. That is a unique American mentality I have not encountered anywhere else in this world. Probably comes from our revolutionary roots, I don't know.

When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Our govt then uses the slippery slope to get Americans to become accustomed to nanny-state control. The goal, the bottom of the slope, is not tyranny, but simply European style control. Little pieces of legislation like free speech zones move citizens along that path.

Here is the problem, and it is a big one: it is only working on one portion of the population. We have a big segment of Americans who are now not only accustomed to nanny-state control, they find it reassuring and comforting. We have another segment of Americans who are apparently immune to this strategy, who still find most forms of control unnecessary and oppressive.

It is a situation ripe for civil war, disobedient Americans against obedient ones who support the govt. During the civil war will come absolute tyranny.

You might say the civil war and the resulting tyranny has nothing to do with the slippery slope--it is caused by violence and disobedience.

I would say it is not so simple. Without the slippery slope, the country would not have been divided into two factions. Without the slippery slope, we might have the Second American Revolution (resulting in a less controlling govt) instead of the Second Civil War (resulting in a more controlling one).

Like most things in history, there are two sides to the story, and all sides contribute to the whole truth.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the slippery slope has never been significant in tyranny in the world. But I'm telling you, it has a signficant role in America, because of our unique heritage and mindset.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:02 PM (P)

"The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt."

Hello,

I'm not sure this is the case.

We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

Even if you discount recent events, we have not had a stable government for even ten generations.

I'm still trying to identify a government that might qualify.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:04 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.

It would be telling if Magon sees any difference between the USA today and the German govt before the Third Reich.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Sunday, January 23, 2011 8:20 PM (P)

Magons, I think your communication is quite clear, so don't diss yourself because others don't understand or make assumptions.

For example:

Quote:
I think it is highly unlikely that a stable democracy would legislate itself into tyranny, that there would have to be other conditions that occur in order for it to come about.

I agree, and for many other reasons, including our diversity and stubborn independence when we SEE (or think we see) erosion of our rights.

Quote:
The USA is currently a stable, peaceful govt. If the circumstances I described occur, and we turn into a tyranny, you would say tyranny happened because of the terrorist attacks that destabilized the govt, because of the violent protests that resulted, and because increased violence in the govt's response. It wouldn't be because we legislated a distance of 300 for funeral protests. Is that right?

I believe Magons has indicated that OTHER things would have to be present for tyranny to take control; economic, geographic, political, societal, etc., etc. Certainly we have economic problems, but in my opinion those and others don’t come close to the kind of “other influences” Germany was experiencing.

I guess I have to add “any perceived erosion of the first amendment” to the subjects of climate change, guns, and birthers, with respect to threads that are started OR might have any conceivable connection to same as threads which will linger past their initial points and end up useless diatribes by either side. Just how I see it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:53 PM (P)

Quote:
When you have a violently disobedient child, and your ultimate goal is control, you use harsher enforcement. The govt mentality is like Anthony's punishment thread: if I don't punish to control this, I'm letting evil continue. The citizen mentality is: control is evil, and we have not just a right, but a duty, to fight it off.

So here, you have a recipe for intense power struggle that you don't see in Europe, where people are content to let a large portion of their lives be overseen by the nanny state. I think our govt wants to emulate the European states, but is encountering difficulty because our rebel mentality is different from Europeans who are accustomed to millenia of serfdom.

Wow, I think you are being completely disingenuous to Europeans, who after all have fought and overthrown tyrannies for many centuries, and fought to develop and sustain democratic processes. You do realise that Americans weren't the only ones fighting in WW2, right? Europe also has a strong tradition of civil disobedience and protest, as you probably witnessed recently with the riots in a number ofr countries. They just protest about different things, but if you think that they are a subservient and docile popultation, you are very mistaken.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 24, 2011 12:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We are absolutely not peaceful, and we are currently experiencing one or more of the named criteria of tyrannical inception named by Magons.
It would be telling if Magon sees any difference between the USA today and the German govt before the Third Reich.

No, I don't see many similarities from where I stand.

Germany had lost millions in WW1, and then in the aftermath of the spanish flu, mostly young people as well. The pre system of governance, the Germany monarchy was overthrown, and in the ensuing chaos the Weimar Republic was established, which almost immediately came under threat from left and right forces. Fighting broke out in a number of areas in the country for contol between the extremes. The country suffered economic collapse, hyperinflation - the Mark was virtually valueless. The Treaty of Versaille had stripped Germany of all its colonies and much of it resource rich lands.

It was basically a country at civil war, its population nearly decimated and demoralised, it economy bankrupt and in ruins.

Do you see similarities?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 24, 2011 12:06 AM (P)

Geez, this system is flawed.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 24, 2011 1:57 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Do you see similarities?

Of course. It goes without saying that when comparing any two things at all, there will be both similarities and differences.

1. The Weimar Republic was a democracy. The USA is a democracy. The WR actually had more party plurality than the USA. For example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1930
But the mechanisms for peaceful political change were there.

2. The Weimar Republic suffered from Depression and inflation. Post 9/11 USA suffered a Depression and inflation. WR's economy was worse by far, but the general economic hardships are there.

3. The Weimar Republic suffered strain from civil war (in large cities) and chronic military engagements. Post 9/11 USA suffered strain from civil war (in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan) and chronic military engagements. WR's military engagements were worse by far (because the civil wars were in country), but the general war weariness is there.

4. The Weimar Republic faced internal and external threats (internal from insurgents and external from neighbors who wanted their war reparations). Post 9/11 USA faces internal and external threats from domestic and foreign terrorists. The general hypervigilance was there.

I can go on, but you see the direction I'm heading. There is enough strain, weariness, and fear that people were willing to use the democratic process to sacrifice freedom for more security. Hitler took advantage of that and invoked enough terror to assume increasing control of the government.

Those are the similarities I see. If we had one more terrorist attack, it would open the door for an American Hitler. From there, you can follow Naomi Wolf's road map in The End of America.

I also see a civil war as a possible scenario, should an American Hitler rise to power. Unfortunately, I don't see that even a civil war would prevent tyranny. I think, because of the slippery slope, enough Americans are accustomed to a controlling govt that rebels would not be able to win that civil war. It would only cause unending death before the inevitable tyranny.

ETA: I should note that the Retenmark was instituted in 1923 and stabilized the hyperinflation. This allowed the Reichmark to stabilize the economy in 1924, well before the Nazi's came to power. So the utter economic ruin you spoke of didn't last that long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 24, 2011 2:36 AM (P)

I think that you can see similarities in anything if you really want to. Germany and the USA are both countries where people live. Doesn't mean much does it. On the spectrum of suffering, Germany and the US are a long way from one another. The US has been, and still is, one of the most prosperous, powerful nations on the planet. Probably one of the most prosperous and powerful nations we've ever encountered. So the crown is slipping somewhat, and it doesn't feel as good as it used to. But guess what, your still up there at the top of the ladder.

Have millions died in war and pestilence? No.
Have you recently had your political system overthrown? No
Do you have civil war ie actual fighting in parts of the country? No
Do you have complete economic collapse? No

The Weimar Republic was a baby democracy, a tenuous one at that. It barely had a chance to establish itself before it was replaced. It was always under serious threat from extremism, and I don't mean the kind of extremism that gets itself elected and has extreme policies, but the kind that overthrows the system of government.

I think the conditions are extremely different currently. They may get worse, or it may stay about the same.

Most historians would link the collapse of the Mark through hyperinflation as having a significant influence on the rise of the nazi party.