Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to march?

New Yorker-

There are numerous posts in this thread making excellent points supporting free speech in America, like the one above. Would you please address the actual content of some of these posts, or does your argument consist of telling us we're all sheltered and don't care what happens to black Americans?

 

To my knowledge there is only one individual that its carte blanche against the law to even vocalize a threat of violence and that is the President of the US. If threats to violence were against the law then everytime someone says, "I'm gonna kick your @ss." or a parent tells a child "When we get home you're gonna get such a spanking." that would be illegal since those are threats of violence.

As for defending the right of Neo-Nazi's to express their views publicly is more classically conservative as its limiting governments ability to intrude on the rights of the individual. What you're arguing is a Liberal view that government should use its power to silence certain individuals for a percieved collective good.

 

No one is defending Neo-Nazis just the right to express views. That said there are many groups that have expressed morally repugnant views or engaged in morally repugnant acts. The Catholic Church has protected pedophiles but I doubt there are many that are sayign we should strip Catholics of their right to free speech and free assembly.

 

The "fighting words" one is a good example of where speech is limited but its one that I think has more to do with the results of what happens. For instance if a fight breaks out regarding at that point whose culpable and how much someone was provoked. Considering how often you hear someone telling someone else, "I'm gonna kick your @ss." I'm not sure how tightly regulated are "fighting words" I will admit I'm not that up on the legal issues regard what specifically constitutes a fighting word or the laws around them.

The quote sounds familiar but I don't recall who said it but I disagree with it again on the same grounds of the slippery slope argument. THe fact that the person also mentioned p*rnography is a good example of how quickly a trend to limit speech in one area can expand to others. There are many things that people find offensive and affront to their dignity. Once that becomes a justification for banning speech then that opens the door to banning on all sorts of speech that a majority finds offensive.

 

Morally repugnant is an understatement. Some blowhard suggests neonazi's messages not be limited to their rotten core, but spread like gospels. The majority of Americans, who are whites btw, could care less about their antics than the imaginary "death-to-America" demonstration by *middle eastern men* in America. Sure.

 

I take it that your earlier response to one of my posts with "what a load of racist crap" was not humor/sarcasm? I assumed it was. If it wasn't sarcastic, please explain why the post was a load of racist crap.

I'm not sure I understand your point above. Do you actually think that if neo-nazi marches were allowed, that their message would 'spread like gospel?' Do you actually think so lowly of Americans (and humanity) that you imagine they'll see a neo-nazi march, and say to themselves "Hey- there's an idea! Kill every n****r on the face of the planet! That sounds great! Never put much thought into it before, but now I'm persuaded! What's the website for this group again?" Allowing the public to see the naked face of hatred will work against these hateful groups, not for them. If you think that giving these guys 'air time' will actually better their cause, then I think you have a dark view of humanity indeed.

 

THey should be allowed to march, (preferably over a cliff)....but not in a minority neighbourhood. The 'fire' in a theatre crowd have it right. This was inciteful. It was violence. It wasn't just offensive...it was an attack on those who live in that neighbourhood behind the shield of free speach. This march wasn't about free speech....it was designed to provoke.

I'll reluctantly support their right to gather...but not to gather any place they like.

Permit people got it wrong here.

 

First of all, your imagenary demonstrations/marches by *middle eastern men" in USA have never occurred in the history of this nation, and it would never ever happen.

Are you OK with police not searching neonazis/kkk for boms/guns, given their proven track record of violence? How about searching anti-abortion groups for rifles given their violent past?

Was it from your own survey or published polls? Did you ask blacks, jews, and other minorities in this country are they more afraid of being beaten, murdered, bombed, skined live, lynched, chained from pickup trucks by neo-nazis/white supremacists or getting attacked by the *middle eastern men* living in America?

Yeah, let the neo-nazis march.



[Members of the National Socialist Movement, which calls itself 'America's Nazi Party' taunt protestors Saturday on the grounds of Woodward High School in Toledo, Ohio.]

 

Pedophilia isn't a stated aim of the Catholic Church. There's a difference between those in an organization who commit criminal acts and an organization itself that promotes violence to achieve its goals. If Catholics taught that pedophilia was an acceptable method to achieve the goals of the Catholic church then it's a different deal.

 

FYI, Germany is a more *liberal* country than U.S., but displaying the swastika and other Nazi symbols is illegal in Germany.

 

I know that. You misunderstand me. The point was purely hypothetical. One of New Yorker's points was that most Americans don't mind neo-nazis marching because the majority of them are white. I was posing a hypothetical situation that would bother the white population- men of middle eastern descent, who, since 911, have unfairly been cast as the bogeymen of the modern era.

Do you read my posts? I have a post not far from us on this very page: "As for violent protests, I think whoever is reviewing the petition for a permit to demonstrate should 1) pick an isolated location where a violent conflict is less likely and easy to control/contain if there is one, and 2) provide lots of security. If it's a group that has or develops a history of violence in protests, then they should be warned that their permits will be denied and their marches illegal.

I don't understand what you're trying to tell me; I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Of course these minorities have a realistic fear of white supremacist organizations. Did you understand the point of my post? And could you answer my earlier question: "Do you actually think that if neo-nazi marches were allowed, that their message would 'spread like gospel?'"

 

Hindus want to 'reclaim' swastika
Hindus in the UK are starting a campaign to reclaim the swastika from its Nazi associations.
German MEPs called for a Europe-wide ban of the symbol after Prince Harry wore it on a fancy dress costume.

But Hindu Forum spokesman Ramesh Kallidai said the swastika had been a Hindu good luck charm for centuries.

The group will stage public awareness workshops across the UK and lobby politicians in an attempt to educate the public and prevent a ban, he said.

"It's the second most sacred symbol in the Hindu tradition which has been used for 5,000 years to ward off evil," Mr Kallidai said.

The forum would make a particular effort to get the message across to Jewish groups, he added.

"After all it is the Jewish anguish that needs to be considered. They were the community that was most affected by the misuse of the swastika so naturally they would have concerns.

"Hindus use the swastika merely as a religious sacrament, to express their devotion to God, surely nobody can have any objections to that," he said.

'Mirror image'

Displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany.

However, Mr Kallidai said a similar ban in the UK would have an adverse affect on Hindus who regarded a swastika in much the same way as a Christian viewed a cross.


"You find it in houses, temples and in portraits of Hindu gods. A swastika is even painted on the head of a baby who's just had his first hair-cutting sacrament," he said.

The Hindu swastika faces to the right, unlike the one adopted by the Nazis which faces to the left.

It is also traditionally red, a colour regarded as auspicious by Hindus.

"Just because at a particular moment in history one section of society used it, or a mirror image, to unleash xenophobic ideology does not mean Hindus should be punished," Mr Kallidai said.

"It's like saying the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses so therefore let's ban the use of crosses worldwide."

'Positive symbol'

The Hindu Forum's campaign has gained backing from other groups.

Maganbhai Patel of Leicester's Hindu Association said the general public's confusion needed to be addressed.


When I got married, literally as soon as you entered the hall where the marriage took place you saw swastikas everywhere
Kapil Dudakia,
Milton Keynes Hindu Association

"Hindus have been using the swastika for centuries, whereas it was only adopted by Hitler comparatively recently, in the 1920s and 1930s.

"We use it for marriage ceremonies and also for other religious ceremonies and events," Mr Patel said.

And Kapil Dudakia, of Milton Keynes Hindu Association, said the swastika was viewed "positively" by billions of people around the world including followers of the Buddhist and Jain faiths.

"When I got married, literally as soon as you entered the hall where the marriage took place you saw swastikas everywhere. They were also on the invitation cards," he said.

"It's only in certain quarters of the western world where you've got these very negative connotations.

"What we've got to do is separate the evil of Hitler and his ideology from the symbol of the swastika which actually means something quite different," Mr Dudakia said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4188141.stm

 

Since you have been making sophmoric arguments with a healthy sprinkling of Herring Le Rouge, I am forced to ask: did you actually show up for your Freshman history class?

 

Where is "searching for bombs/guns"?

If some **** is repeated enough, uneducated/uninformed/"I'll-follow-whatever-our-leaders-tell-us"/"I-couldn't-care-less" hoi polloi would take it as truth. Look no further, Iraq's WMD claim and Saddam's connection to 9/11 are the two examples of the effects of propaganda. Hitler used the strategy/tactic brilliantly in WWII Germany. In his own words:

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

 

Enlighten me, professor.

 

I truly, honestly do not think that some hypothetical march of *middle eastern men who hate america* (an image I called up only as a bogeyman that many white americans might fear) would be no more or less dangerous than a march of neo-nazis. If any group is prone to violence, use of explosives, gunfire, etc, then all security measures necessary to prevent the group from causing violence should be taken, up to and including denying the permit to march altogether in the first place.

Your labeling of my post as racist was misjudged.

This is a good point and a really good quote. I was and still am terribly disappointed in the Americans who followed the administration's war justifications blindly, and still defend them today. Also, the Hitler reference is relevant, since the fear you are expressing is that a small group could influence a larger group to think and do evil.

It's worth mentioning, and I by no means enjoy defending Bush, that immediately after 911 he made a specific point of defending the religion of Islam and muslims in general on several occasions. I do not think that the Bush administration is a bastion of tolerance, but I do think that the chance of this WWII Germany scenario playing out is low in a modern America with open free debate, where all ideas may compete. I really don't think that at this day and age in this country that these incredibly over-the-top hateful groups are going to develop a major base, and if they did it wouldn't be because those damned liberals allowed them to march. If recruitment for them goes up it will be because of much deeper and darker social issues and not because us goddamned liberals fight so hard to protect free speech. Restricting free speech is a step towards fascism, not away from it.

 

Why, my pleasure wnes!

You are misleading us with a "Herring Le Rouge"--my attempt at witty humor--by your argument that Germany is supposedly more *liberal*(oh so Trader-texx), but restricts the swastika from being displayed by law.

Therefore the First Amendment, which is supposedly more *conservative*, shouldn't be extended to allow Neo-Nazis their right to free speech because of how repugnant and racist their views are and they advocate extermination of another race.

I am reaching, but is that where you are going with your argument?

Now, I'm not a professor--just a *liberal*. However, I do hold a degree in History so I might be able to offer a teeee bit of historical context. The emerging German state after WWII--broken, occupied, and faced with the grim reality of millions exterminated by their leaders under the Nazi party and the Swastika, had to cut ALL ties with their revolting past. Every German was shamed and guilty even if they hadn't been the actual soldier who dropped the canisters of Zyklon B into the gassing rooms.

If that doesn't make sense, I'm not sure how else to frame the horror of WWII and why Germans would outright ban the palpable evil represented by the most recognized symbol of hate in the world that originated by their own hands!

 

naaw...even better

if they want to march through a neighborhood, have all the residents stadn outside with their garden hoses and give them a shower.

a nice, non-violent response to dirty scum.

 

I did reread that post of yours (in replies to NewYorker) more than a few times and I am still not convinced that I completely misjudged it. Up to that point you had not explicitly expressed any concern for the dangers incurred to the environment (e.g. a neighbourhood) by the marches/demonstrations held by neo-nazis/KKK/white supremacist groups due to the possibilities that they might bring bombs/guns with them, given their violent history. Yet the first time you mentioned a hypothetical open rally by a group of *middle eastern men* residing in the U.S., you immediately called for searching for their guns/bombs before these Muslim men are allowed their share of *freedom of speech*.

What a better proof to NewYorker's assertion that whites don't really fear for their own safety when encountering white supremacist groups, even the angry white supremacist groups? Ask the blacks in the South or in some Midwestern areas are they more afraid of white supremacists or strikes from *middle eastern men*.

You said

How exactly getting repeatedly exposed to something would make one oppose to it? Getting exposed more to drugs make a teenage more likely to repel drugs? How about violence? Sex (not that a bad idea)?

To be fair, if you or the people of your race have never experienced something that only other race(s) experienced, it would be very difficult for you to understand the horror and intimidation feared by those people. However, despite your earnest condemnation of the content of hate speech etc, your *embracing* the freedom of neo-nazis as a principle to uphold the 1st Amendment rights for all Americans simply rings hollow to the people who have been terrorized in the past.

From reading your subsequent posts, I may have misjudged you as a person or as a poster. But that particular post of yours is very disturbing to me.

Well, while I am glad you have somewhat similar opinion as mine about the ongoing War, I didn't intend to turn this debate into another anti-war discussion. My reference to alleged WMD claim etc was merely an attempt to show no matter how liberal one claims to be (e.g. the media), one could easily be misled into falsehood, or how educated one could be (e.g. those German intellectuals who supported Nazi Hitler), one could easily be manipulated emotionally and religiously to (help) commit evil acts.

Like Justice O'Connor said, "the protections afforded by the First Amendment ... are not absolute." Using a real life example, under absolute freedom, a motorist shall be at liberty to travel at any speed and without stopping at intersections to look for crossing traffics. However in doing so, the safety of the rest of motorists would be in great jeopardy if a few bullies have no concerns for others. That's why we have speed limits and traffic lights to regulate congestions and accidents. These rules actually facilitate freedom of travel, they don't restrict it. Likewise, laws that prevent slavery increase freedom. Rules and regulations are not by definition restrictive on the whole, as their net effect can be to facilitate liberty. Hate speeches, intimidations, racist terrorism by one group of people onto another is not the freedom a *free* society should condone. When you allow this kind of freedom to reign *free*, you essentially strip the freedom of another groups of people's right to live fear-free.

 

My impression is, from what I read and heard, Germany, apart from the banning of the Nazi symbols, is more liberal politically, socially, and ideologically than the good ol' USA. Unless someone who lived both in Germany and America extensively comes to offer insights, I stand by my previous statement. Thanks for the lesson nonetheless.