Is it right to prohibit Extremist Islamic Organisations?

[mrmod]

The question ought to be: "Is it right to prohibit extremist organizations?"
The Islamic part is not a crime, but any extremist organizations, that advocate violence against identifiable groups, such as for example the Nazi party, or the Ku Klux Klan, deserve to have their freedom to operate curtailed.

There was no actual violence per se. Just a goal of introducing the Shariah and complaining about treatment of Muslims..

What they intended to do was parade around a place that was known for honouring the bodies of soldiers who died in action. This was seen as wrong, but not violent. You can argue that the ideals were a bit violent, but the group didn't engange in any violence.

Under freedom of speech ( the way I see it ) if one supports it and expects to be able to state what he or she wants to in public or to the public then that same person or person's has to accept that they will have no choice but to hear things they don't like and really do not want to listen to. So I stand behind the right of every person to be able to speak their mind in public without fear of reprisal.
The way I see things world wide tho, this is not the case anywhere on earth. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or anything else for that matter. Altho I do not agree with the act, as long as the authorities enforce it, thats just tough. Remember that it is an act and not a law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di..._and_a_law

Even (as vf said) for the KKK? Would you not ban such an organisation?

You say there is no such thing as freedom of speech. What do we have in its' place then?

The Act may not be a law, but it gives alot of power to the government. DORA during WWI was not a law but it allowed the government to take almost unrestricted control over the nation, so the morale and supplies would be kept high.

This Act gives the government power to shut down any organisation on pretences of terrorism. Which can be taken in many different ways and gives the government alot of "ground to cover"...

It is an act that allows for laws to be written but still needs to be enforced to carry any wieght Dan.
I would not ban anyone from speaking their mind on any topic.
Thats freedom of speech.
Show me one place on earth that this is the way it is.
Because I believe in freedom of speech and that may allow outfits like the KKK to speak their mind this turns you off and may well lend you to call me names for it.
As far as I am concerned under freedom of speech you have every right to do so. Thats the thing Dan, with my freedom to say what I want to also comes yours. To say that a certain thing is not allowed to be talked of by a group that supports that thing is not free at all Dan.
Thats my take.

You get my idea about the act. Just because it's not a law does not mean it doesn't hold power .

I'm mentioning the KKK for a reason. In their speeches they talk of hurting other people (jews,black, catholics) and superiority of the Arian race (Wasp). These speeches could influence and lead to violence (as has happened in the past).Now you have conflicting rights - the right to free speech and the right of the equality. In this situation, if you have one you can't have the other. It's point I'm trying to make - where do you draw the line?

Thanks for playing a part though, it's good to get everyone's opinion. It may seem off-topic but it's the whole idea of the article condensed...