Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to march?

I think we should let them march in that area they cordoned off for Martha Burke at Augusta a couple of years ago.

 

Okay. Good point. I don't know how best to explain this. My mental associations of violence with different groups vary via my limited life experience, socialization, tv, etc. My associations of violence with neo-nazis are young skinhead white dudes who beat up minorities in alleyways. My associations with KKK violence are cross & church burnings, hangings, dragging on pavement, and the occasional targeted shooting. My associations with violent arab men who want Americans to die are lone young men who wander into a crowd with a backpack bomb. That's why the post came out the way it did. Please don't jump down my throat and assume that's my association with all arab men; I grew up for six years in Dubai when I was young and have plenty of positive memories and associations along with the bad.

You must not be reading me that carefully, I've already affirmed that white americans are less afraid of white supremacists. When did I ever disagree with that?

I hear what you're saying, but I'm sorry, I think this stuff is just so ugly on it's face that anybody with any basic understanding of goodness in their hearts just could not jive with it at all. Have you seen how these guys speak, how they act? You watch these rallies, they only attract people who are disgusted and want to fight back. If they got really slick and intellectual and found more submersive ways to spread, okay, then I'm worried. These rallies by KKK and neo-nazis are f*cking circuses, they're so stupid. They are so utterly lame and without any redeeming value that I think it could only drive away anyone with a shred of sense.

Excellent point. This is really well written, thanks for that. How does a white American respond to that? I feel trapped, because if I insist on the principle of free speech, then that casts me as unsympathetic to minorities, or even racist. All I can say is that I always do my best to be sympathetic, and it's hard to express how important it is to me to stand up for this principle.

I think we all harbor stereotypes of races; it's inevitable from being socialized in a particular country and culture. Those of us who are the members of the race of priviledge must be aware that our thoughts and stereotypes, no matter how hidden or small we think they are, can and will contribute to racism overall. All I can say is I try to be aware, self aware, and do my best.

I think I've asked this at least a couple of times already: do you want to prevent white supremacists from gathering in particular neighborhoods, or to not be permitted to gather publicly at all?
Furthermore, there is a difference between an official public demonstration, for which a permit was petitioned and granted, and a private group of individuals harrassing/attacking/killing another individual or individuals. In other words, there's a difference between some neonazis marching and yelling in an official demonstration, and them getting drunk later that night and attacking a black couple outside a bar. I think your motorist analogy relates best to the latter. If the neonazis in question were saying the same things they said in the demonstration to a black couple outside a bar that night the police should intervene and have them arrested for making threats. Legally approved public gatherings should still be allowed, with smart and reasonable security measures taken, including searches, police presence and selection of location.

So tell us, what speech should be outlawed? What kind of speech? Where? When? How about the internet? Who gets to decide the gray areas? Who gets to decide what hate speech is?

 

Nolen might not be able to address this but I can. I'm an ethnic minority in this country and have dealt with racisms first hand. I've been called "Chink", "Gook" and many other even less flattering names. I've been told to get back on the boat and I've been physically threatened and even had to fight just because someone didn't like Asians. That said though I'm not going to back down from my stand that even the most hateful repugnant speech of Neo-Nazis should be allowed. The very fact that I am an ethnic minority makes my belief in the freedom of speech even stronger. I understand that I live in a society where people like me are a minority and historically have been considered repugnant and unsavory by much of society. Its because of that that I want to know that even if the most of this society finds me and my views repugnant the Constitution will still be there to protect my right to free expression and my right to free association. For those who say this is a ridiculous argument just remember that it wasn't that long ago that so called coloreds weren't allowed the right to free association in many states since that was considered threatening by many in those states. It took federal court orders based upon the first Ammendment to change that.

I find this line of argument disturbingly Orwellian. Restriction makes you free. Freedom isn't about the state guarenteeing a peaceble society but about empowering people the ability to create their own society. Certainly there will be many who abuse that freedom but if government were to start picking and choosing which messages are allowed then society would rapidly not become free as the temptation will always exist to reduce the speech and dissent to the least most inoffensive common denomitor.

 

I'm a firm believer that bigotry in any form is the symptom of an underlying cause. Some of this stems from economical backgrounds or a profound change in community. Others haven't genuinely interacted with a minority race in their life.

So instead of any dialogue, whether heated or not, we're going to suppress it to spare some feelings? The law allows peaceable demonstrations. Getting rid of that will cause more riots and more hate groups on the internet, and ultimately more ruined lives. There has to be means to get our dirty past out into the air.

Suppressing the symptoms and pretending it isn't there is only going to make the cancer worse.

 

Nolen, let me just say your sincerity and detailed replies to my opinions caught me by surprise. They surely eradicate any perception and misjudgment I previously had against you. Obviously not everyone who has viewed the thread cared to vote, let alone taking the opportunity to openly explain his/her position painstakingly. While this may not necessarily change my position as a result, it certainly helps me tremendously view the same issue from a different perspective. For that I greatly appreciate your effort.

 

And they are more liberal--you are absolutely right. My point, if I didn't make myself clear, was that despite that tendency from WEST Germans(lets be clear that the east isn't liberal--still)they ban that symbol because of the terrible consequences of WWII. It, the swastika, sums up that entire disgusting episode of Germany's history.

BTW, I haven't lived in Germany, but have spent time there on two different occasions and Nazi's are something you would do WELL not to bring up in polite conversation.

 

Germany banned nazi symbols for unique reasons that aren't in the US. Conseqently a comparision between the two is somewhat flawed.

1. WWII just ended and allowing nazi protests really would set off riots and what not (something modern neo-nazi protests wouldnt really do, people just ignore them now). Also the division between nazi supporters and opponents was so great that you could see a scenario for civil war should nazi groups be allowed to regroup and rejoin the political process.

2. West Germany just came out of WWII and needed to demonstrate that it was willing to move on past the nazi legacy. Also a demonstration of strong, liberal central government was needed in a time of chaos. There simply was no alternative.

 

Well Sishir everyone would agree that your successful struggles against racial biases, intimidations, and threats are undoubtedly a personal triumph, and your unwavering committment to freedom of speech for all is very uplifting to every ethnic minority. The problem I see, however, is one man's success in fighting *extreme* racism doesn't paint a complete and accurate picture. I am sure there were some Jews in WWII Germany who not only survived the murderous Nazi regime but lived worry-free and prosperous lives. By the same token, that Bill Gates epitomizes a stunning how-to-get-rich in America doesn't spell well why most youngsters in this country probably won't do very well later in their lives if they don't go to college and finish it when they opt to drop out and start their own business. Of course I am using hyperbole here but I trust you get my idea.

 

Sorry. I'm enjoying reading this discussion, and it's one Americans should have periodically, for no other reason than to appreciate just what we've got, and how important it is that we don't lose it, but this bowled me over. Jews in Nazi Germany, a small number, may have been able to survive, and even prosper, using guile and with a great deal of luck, but worry-free? Please tell me that was tongue-in-cheek.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

For the people who do not think this is a big deal:
do you also think it is ok for a group of terrorists to march through New York with banners that say that: 9-11 was great, and the people in the us deserved it?

Just wondering.

 

Thank you Wnes for your praise but I wasn't bringing that up to say that I was exceptional. The sad truth is that as an ethnic minority who grew up in the US and Texas when I did that sort of thing wasn't that uncommon. My point is not one of saying that we need to be tougher as minorities to deal with racism because by all means we should stand up and point out and confront racism when it exists, my point is that it is in all of our interests to protect freedom of speech and assembly to a high degree. While the Neo-Nazis are an almost universally reviled group they are an extreme minority in viewpoint. At the sametime us as Asian-Americans are also a minority and while we as a group don't profess hateful views whose to say that something wouldn't happen where the non-Asian majority becomes very concerned about Asians and decides its too dangerous to allow Asians to march or publicly assemble.

For instance lets say there's another EP3 Spyplane incident except this time the PRC deliberately shoots down an EP3 that has strayed over PRC territory. Theoretically a wave of anti-Chinese could spread throughout the US leading to calls to ban Chinese New Years parades on the pretense that such displays could lead to violence or that Chinese organizations should be if not outlawed but heavily restricted. Things like that have happened before and if not for the protection of the First Ammendment there's nothing really stopping municipalities from doing things like that.

 

By *worry-free* I mean some Jews, because of their talents, special status, or close relationships to the leaders, never had to worry about Gestapo taking them to concentration camps. I realize now it's not a good analogy, even by stretch, to draw comparison between their survival of Nazi Germany and Sishir's personal struggle because the former didn't have to fight. My bad.

 

Bookmark this one, y'all! Civility and open discussion in the D&D- two people coming a lot closer to understanding the other's viewpoint! It happened!


<flock of doves released into the air, petals of flowers falling from the sky>

 

No I wouldn't because if they are terrorists under the definition of having committed acts of legally defined terrorism or shown to be plotting such acts then they are criminals and should be arrested. If they are otherwise peaceful people who hate the US then I would allow it especially since there already are people who express such views publicly in the US.

 

Actually, I already stated earlier in the thread that I would be fine with that, and I live in NY and was here for 911. (I may have put something offensive in the post just after, tho...whoops.)

In my opinion, if I wanted to ban someone from making public statements because I found them offensive, then I'd think I was being a b****.

Can I now, for like the fourth time in this thread, draw a distinction between an organized, petitioned, approved demonstration and a group of guys acting independently on a street corner at night?

Public forum: say what the hell you want! Let the public hear what you have to say and judge your words by their own merit. I don't like it that it may scare some people; that's not a good thing. Frankly, the more over-the-top hateful these guys talk, the stupider they look. I think we learn something by being exposed to the naked face of hate, perhaps some innocence is lost, but we better understand that it's out there somewhere, and that we don't want to be a part of it. I wish I could express this better.

In private: if I'm having dinner in France (I've spent some summers working there) and some european wants to do some America bashing, watch out. That pisses me off. You say what you want, but get ready for me to say something back, and it won't be pretty. If I'm out in the street at night and some dude starts screaming in my face that everybody who died in 911 deserved it and all Americans should die, etc... things could come to blows quickly (if there's only one and he doesn't have weapons, lol.) He can say what he want but there will be consequences.

In a public demonstration, hell, I don't mind at all if some organization wanted to do a public march praising 911 right here in NY. I'm dead serious. It wouldn't be smart, and it would probably be almost impossible to keep it from becoming violent because New Yorkers are very confrontational and sensitive about 911, but if you can find an isolated location and get enough riot police to contain things, hey, go for it. Scream your stupid lungs out.

In private, it's different.

 

Pretty smart words...

.....for a New Yorker

That sums up my view too.

 

i just wanted to say i thoroughly enjoy reading your well thought out and well put viewpoints.

 

NewYorker, I agree with the spirit of your post. Yes I don't like neo-nazis or Islamic fundamentalists preaching hate. No one wants their kids to walk out their house and see nutheads advocating absolutely deplorable ideas.

HOWEVER, history shows that banning such things opens up a can of worms. I'll give you a little known example.

In the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the National Organization of Women which sued a group of anti-abortion protestors. The argument was that these protestors were inhibiting the abortion clinic's ability to effectively engage in business. The court ruled that these protestors were guilty of racketeering and were thrown in jail. My own debate coach in high school was sued under RICO (the government's big racketeering law) claiming that his protest was somehow inhibiting a company's business. (Despite the fact that the protest was done across the street) Nonetheless it set off a pandora's box as the government and corporations sued everyone left and right accusing them of racketeering (mob activity). Thankfully a couple of years ago the supreme court overturned itself and ruled against the national organization of women.

This isn't the only example of governments and corporations taking advantage of well intentioned laws by targeting innocent individuals. And like I said earlier, if your law existed 50 years ago, MLK's sit-ins wouldve been interpreted by racist governors as somehow being hate speech. Similarly, some ultra-conservative evangelical could interpret a gay rights protest as hate speech.

Remember this isn't a question of whether or not you think gay rights protests are hate speech. You already agreed they arent. However, its a question of how others view it and some will inevitably use any new hate speech law to clamp down on innocent people.