Even if we were to agree to the premise, how would you prove that one really is a fascist? Seems to me you'd have a 1984-style epidemic of false reports just because you don't like a person.
The people doing this would be fascists. They would thus be performing a banned activity and need to be jailed themselves. The end result is that all people who participate in the system are condemned and arrested.
The goal ultimately is to make fascism socially unacceptable (without the need to legislate). But in the efforts to attain the goal, law has a role to play. The point is not to "punish ideas" as many seem to interpret. When some action is publicly suggested by a politic/religioz leader, not an idea
Communism has directly lead to more innocent deaths than Fascism. Therefore we should embrace Fascism whenever it will save us from Communism. Banning Fascism might cause far greater harm.
Starts with the assertion that communism has resulted in more "innocent deaths" than fascism, fails to clarify ambiguous wording, and then nonsensically ends with the conclusion that, in the interest of lessening harm, society should embrace fascism, as historically it has lead to less "innocent deaths".
xplkqlkcassia
Begging The Question
Hysteron proteron, the premise presupposes that communism is more dangerous than fascism, and furthermore implicates that fascism and communism counter-balance and neutralise each other.
xplkqlkcassia
Prejudicial Language
Prejudicial and clearly loaded language, "innocent deaths", and "directly", "might cause", "save us from", assuming this as historical fact even when this is merely a presupposed assertion.
xplkqlkcassia
This is essentially circular reasoning. "We should ban a thing" needs to be explained by why it should be banned, not the idea that it would reduce it (which is the obvious goal).
gappleto97
xplkqlkcassia
