The argument in favor of the legislation is that the Anti-Semetic, neo- Nazi, white supremacist literature is invalid in beliefs, morally reprehensible in brainwashing children, bigoted in nature, and present great danger to society and must be stopped. .
Conversely, John Stuart Mill objects to the proposed amendment to the constitution based on paternal legislation which is ruled out by the harm principle. Given the assumption of infallibility and the value in differing ideas, Mill demonstrates that the government is hurting the well-being of society by suppressing minority opinions. His solution is to solve the problem though intellectually stimulating open discussion and debate. Through reason, arguments, and facts the problems will be resolved in a civil manner. Ultimately, John Stuart Mill's argument is more convincing because it is more rational, valid, and effective compared to the argument in favor of the legislation. .
FIRST ARGUMENT .
This group is a threat to the country for they promote, endorse, and most like will commit acts of violence. The neo-Nazis believe that the "white race either kill or be killed". Moreover, they believe in brain-washing children into believing that there is a Jewish problem. There ideals are morally reprehensible, factually inaccurate, and thus must be stopped. .
They are morally at fault for targeting children. At the critical ages from four to seven, children are not able to form there own opinions; consequently, the ideas, beliefs, values that they are exposed probably will stay in them for the rest of their life. As most children their age are engrossed in "Sesame Street" and fairy tales, they will be enthralled with "Schindler's List" and nostalgic tales of the holocaust. Inevitably, growing up and seeing nothing wrong with the atrocious crime of murdering people based on religion, color of skin, and/or political values.
Furthermore, there beliefs are erroneous, bigoted, and narrow-minded.
