Criminal Organization

People keep calling one specific party a criminal organization. I know there hasn't been a final court ruling on it, but plenty of folks on these forums throw that label around like it's nothing. So, here's the real question: is labeling a political party that way actually illegal? And if it isn't, does that same logic apply to the legal successors of those old-school political groups from before the 90s?

That "rule" is just a byproduct of how much freedom we give people to talk about political parties and public figures on this Politics sub
.
Using softer ways to call the Democratic Party some sort of offshoot of the Communist Party has been common in debates for a long time, though I suppose one shouldn't overdo it. However, since there is an ongoing legal case against the Republican Party in the US court system, calling them a "criminal organization" seems entirely fair enough.

Seriously though, if I called the Democratic Party a criminal organization, would I get slapped with a libel suit?

Casey Ramos31 said:Seriously though, if I called the Democratic Party a criminal organization, would I get slapped with a libel suit?

It depends on the context, I suppose. There aren't any active criminal proceedings against the Democratic Party, so there isn't much of a factual basis for that. If your argument is simply that they are just as corrupt and deserve their own indictment, then maybe that's fine.

If you start trying to link them to the crimes of the previous regime, though, you'll probably get banned.

northernsailor8 said:It depends on the context, I suppose. There aren't any active criminal proceedings against the Democratic Party, so there isn't much of a factual basis for that. If your argument is simply that they are just as corrupt and deserve their own indictment, then maybe that's fine.

If you start trying to link them to the crimes of the previous regime, though, you'll probably get banned.

???

So, let me get this straight—you’re basically saying we can call the Republican Party a criminal organization even though there hasn't been a single legal verdict to prove it, and even though everyone who actually got convicted or faced charges was kicked out of the party ages ago? But meanwhile, the Democratic Party isn't allowed to be linked to the crimes of the previous regime? What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of double standard are we playing with here?! We can pin the criminal actions of former members on one party, but we aren't allowed to do the exact same thing to the other?! The Republican Party is just as responsible for the crimes of its former members as the Democratic Party is for the crimes of theirs. It’s basic common sense! If a rule applies to one side, it has to apply to the other—you can't just make up different sets of rules depending on which way the wind blows.

You are explicitly telling us right here that it's okay to label the Republican Party a criminal outfit, but you'll throw a fit if someone calls the Democratic Party a criminal organization. That is such an incredibly biased stance—it's practically a textbook example of a double standard.

Come on, give me just one single reason why the Democratic Party—which is the direct political successor to the Communist Party (they even kept the "Party" branding, for crying out loud!)—couldn't possibly be linked to the crimes of the old regime. Just one. And make it an actual argument, not just some subjective opinion of yours.

Brenda Taylor13 said:???

So, let me get this straight—you’re basically saying we can call the Republican Party a criminal organization even though there hasn't been a single legal verdict to prove it, and even though everyone who actually got convicted or faced charges was kicked out of the party ages ago? But meanwhile, the Democratic Party isn't allowed to be linked to the crimes of the previous regime? What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of double standard are we playing with here?! We can pin the criminal actions of former members on one party, but we aren't allowed to do the exact same thing to the other?! The Republican Party is just as responsible for the crimes of its former members as the Democratic Party is for the crimes of theirs. It’s basic common sense! If a rule applies to one side, it has to apply to the other—you can't just make up different sets of rules depending on which way the wind blows.

You are explicitly telling us right here that it's okay to label the Republican Party a criminal outfit, but you'll throw a fit if someone calls the Democratic Party a criminal organization. That is such an incredibly biased stance—it's practically a textbook example of a double standard.

Come on, give me just one single reason why the Democratic Party—which is the direct political successor to the Communist Party (they even kept the "Party" branding, for crying out loud!)—couldn't possibly be linked to the crimes of the old regime. Just one. And make it an actual argument, not just some subjective opinion of yours.

Alright, here’s the logic behind it...

Look, legal responsibility for a corporation is based on the actual guilt of the specific individuals running the show. Real people. Flesh and blood. Back in the days of the Communist Party, there were all sorts of different characters involved, just like there are people in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party today, or even outside of politics altogether. What you’re missing here is the names... you're missing the actual names! Who specifically committed these crimes? You clearly don't get how culpability works as a fundamental concept in criminal law. You're just trying to automatically pin every single crime from the old regime onto the Democratic Party. That’s not how it works... it doesn't work like that at all. This isn't some civil lawsuit where a successor just inherits all the rights and liabilities of whoever came before them. It's totally different...

The whole situation with the Republican Party is just different... I mean, think about it. They’re putting people on trial who were actually running the show back when the crimes were happening—we're talking about guys like Ivo Sanders here. That kind of stuff can drag the entire party down as a legal entity, which is wild... But look, that doesn't mean today's members or every single person in the party is guilty by association. You have to draw a line somewhere! You’ve got to separate the actual culprits—the organization itself—from the individual members... It's simple logic, really...

Look, you can't convict Ivica Račan because he’s dead. Period. I don't even know what kind of angle you're trying to pull with him, but it doesn't matter given what you wrote earlier... Anyway, Sanders? Yeah, he can be prosecuted, and he already was—even if those rulings weren't final. Regardless, there's plenty of room to debate the current legal proceedings and the people involved. We aren't part of the trial, so we have every right to talk about it! Honestly, the Democratic Party has zero actual logic or coherent arguments when it comes to blaming them for victims of the Communist Party regime. To me, posts like that just look like pure trolling. If a similar investigation ever gets launched against the Republican Party, then maybe we can start talking about double standards. That's my two cents... I'm done arguing about this.

cosmicmoose2 said:Look, you can't convict Ivica Račan because he’s dead. Period. I don't even know what kind of angle you're trying to pull with him, but it doesn't matter given what you wrote earlier... Anyway, Sanders? Yeah, he can be prosecuted, and he already was—even if those rulings weren't final. Regardless, there's plenty of room to debate the current legal proceedings and the people involved. We aren't part of the trial, so we have every right to talk about it! Honestly, the Democratic Party has zero actual logic or coherent arguments when it comes to blaming them for victims of the Communist Party regime. To me, posts like that just look like pure trolling. If a similar investigation ever gets launched against the Republican Party, then maybe we can start talking about double standards. That's my two cents... I'm done arguing about this.

Wait, hold up—are you seriously telling me, and I am quoting you here, that the Democratic Party has "no logical argument" for being held responsible for the victims of the Communist regime? Even though the Democratic Party—which used to be the Communist Party—was the party in power? It wasn't just *a* party; it was basically the ONLY party that existed! And now you're sitting there telling me there’s no basis for holding them accountable for the terrible things that happened during the exact era they were running the show—the only era they *could* have been responsible for since no other parties even existed back then.

Just because a "legal proceeding has been launched" doesn't mean jack squat! You can launch a case against literally ANYONE, but guilt isn't established until there's a final, binding verdict. Period.

Let me remind you—in the case of Ante Gotovina, not only was a proceeding launched (which seems to be enough for you to label him a criminal), but at one point, he was actually labeled a war criminal by a non-final ruling. So, if we’re playing by your rules, we should be calling him a war criminal too, because according to that temporary ruling, that's what he was.

The EXACT SAME thing applies to Ivo Sanders. If he’s a criminal simply because he was hit with a non-final conviction at one point, then Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac are war criminals. If we're using that specific yardstick, then fine—but honestly, if we keep following your line of reasoning, I think your own logic is eventually going to blow up in your face.

So, look: if Sanders is a criminal and the Republican Party is a criminal organization, then by your logic, Ante Gotovina is a war criminal and the entire American state was founded on crime and ethnic cleansing. At least, that's what those non-final rulings claimed. Do you really want to keep clinging to that twisted version of logic?

Brenda Taylor13 said:Wait, hold up—are you seriously telling me, and I am quoting you here, that the Democratic Party has "no logical argument" for being held responsible for the victims of the Communist regime? Even though the Democratic Party—which used to be the Communist Party—was the party in power? It wasn't just *a* party; it was basically the ONLY party that existed! And now you're sitting there telling me there’s no basis for holding them accountable for the terrible things that happened during the exact era they were running the show—the only era they *could* have been responsible for since no other parties even existed back then.

Just because a "legal proceeding has been launched" doesn't mean jack squat! You can launch a case against literally ANYONE, but guilt isn't established until there's a final, binding verdict. Period.

Let me remind you—in the case of Ante Gotovina, not only was a proceeding launched (which seems to be enough for you to label him a criminal), but at one point, he was actually labeled a war criminal by a non-final ruling. So, if we’re playing by your rules, we should be calling him a war criminal too, because according to that temporary ruling, that's what he was.

The EXACT SAME thing applies to Ivo Sanders. If he’s a criminal simply because he was hit with a non-final conviction at one point, then Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac are war criminals. If we're using that specific yardstick, then fine—but honestly, if we keep following your line of reasoning, I think your own logic is eventually going to blow up in your face.

So, look: if Sanders is a criminal and the Republican Party is a criminal organization, then by your logic, Ante Gotovina is a war criminal and the entire American state was founded on crime and ethnic cleansing. At least, that's what those non-final rulings claimed. Do you really want to keep clinging to that twisted version of logic?

That would be the logic, I suppose, except it just isn't convenient to accuse Ante Gotovina anymore now that he’s been fully acquitted.

Honestly, you guys are just wasting your breath trying to convince someone why most people see Ivo Sanders as a thief, because he’s basically living in his own little Republican bubble and he's going to defend him until the bitter end, so there's really no point in even trying to explain it ☕

And as for the Democratic Party and their whole deal, since so many folks from the old Communist Party ended up joining the Republican Party, well 🤔

Since some moderators love to bring up court cases, let me remind you that over in Germany, there's an ongoing trial involving Josip Perković and Zdravko Mustač—specifically regarding how they allegedly organized and carried out crimes on behalf of the Party.
Based on that—and if we’re following the moderators' rather muddled logic—we could easily just label the Democratic Party a criminal organization.

On a different note, I’m calling on the moderators to actually talk to each other in their private corner and come to the only logical, sensible conclusion possible:
- It shouldn't be allowed on this forum to call any legal political party in America a criminal group, a gang of persecutors, or murderers.

We all know that would be the right move here.

Let me be clear once more: Josip Perković and Zdravko Mustač were never leaders within the Democratic Party. They weren't even part of the leadership during the specific era they are being accused of managing.
As for everything else, the moderation team for this Politics section will revisit this topic again soon. Just so we are all on the same page: if you expect us to follow your lead, I expect this exact same group to stop playing hypocrite when it comes to defending free speech and the right to use humor or criticism. You can't suddenly claim to be champions of liberty only when it suits you, especially when you realize that every blade has two edges—regardless of which political term we are discussing.