Neo-Nazi Rally in Arizona Got Ugly

[Grassy Knoll]

Run time: 02:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5GMaDOIm3c   Posted on YouTube: November 14, 2010 By YouTube Member: bettyc5542 Views on YouTube: 115   Posted on DU: November 14, 2010 By DU Member: Grassy Knoll Views on DU: 5337

 

[solara]

1. "Got" ugly? n/t

:patriot:

[jberryhill]

3. As opposed to the normal, attractive Neo-Nazi rallies, I suppose

[solara]

16. Indeed

:rofl:

[molly77]

22. Nazi rally, Nazi cops, Nazi country

[NYMdaveNYI]

28. Nazi Nation. nt

[sasha031]

2. I feel bad for the normal people who live in Arizona

having Nazi's march in my state and having the police protect them, would be more than I could stomach.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Well then those twelve people should move.

[PSzymeczek]

27. I'm assuming

that's sarcasm.

[ooglymoogly]

4. Easy to see who the Nazi's were. I'm guessing the ones with weapons in Nazi uniforms. nt

[briteleaf]

6. Leave the Nazis alone. If you want free speech, you have to allow it even when you hate it.

The nazis worked hard organizing their tiny protest. It took them months to find enough believers who could walk and talk at the same time. If you want to live in a free country, YOU HAVE TO LET PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT IDEAS BE FREE. You may hate to see the american flag burn but if it's their flag and their fire, leave them alone. DON'T THROW ROCKS!!!
The protesters could have ignored the tiny nazi soiree and had their own march. The nazis wouldn't have received all of this free publicity. Speak up for yourself. Let others speak up for themselves.

[asdjrocky]

8. You are right.

And welcome to DU.

[sulphurdunn]

9. I want to tell you to shove it!

But I can't because you're correct. :grr:

[proud patriot]

14. +1

I really hate Nazi's . but violence only begets violence .

[Chulanowa]

17. Here's the thing

when you dress up and carry the banner of a political movement best-known for murdering 12 million people who didn't conform to a racial ideal, and march through the streets calling for the deaths and imprisonments of people who live on that street... You are not engaging in protected speech, you are engaging in incitement. There's a difference between voicing unpopular opinion, and what people like the Phelps and Nazis of the country do.

if I see you marching down the street, waving a swastika and calling for harm to come to my brown ass, then I am going to do what I can to silence your "free speech" - because your "speech" has a proven track record of bringing harm to people, and it is now threatening me.

Also you will notice that in this exercise, only one group's "free speech" was protected - that of the people indulging in incitement, supported by Arizona's "finest." Others indulging free speech in a protest were battered and assaulted with chemical weapons before anyone threw a rock.

[jkappy]

19. Yes, what does this march have to do with protected speech

or speech at all. It's an act which produced harm and should be illegal.

[earcandle]

34. Actually, if you let them be who they are, and then treat them accordingly, I think they might get

the message they don't belong.  Video tape them close up and
post their faces in the local community.
Boycott their means of existence.  Do powerful non verbal
actions meant to dis-empower at the root level. 
Ask them to talk about their beliefs, thoughts, feelings and
how they participate, and what experiences they
get, what realizations they have, and what knowledge they have
collected, what have they mastered following this
train of thought, besides being trashed in the end, over and
over again.   Somewhere in that conversation they
will show up in their own bodies, with minds that have gone
over the edge and they will know it.  Nurse them back. 

What else can you do in a free society? 

[Chulanowa]

49. Non-Violence is a different thing from pacifism

I don't advocate violence (Well, more accurately I don't advocate initiating violence - use all means necessary to defend yourself) but nor do I advocate the passive measures beign advocated by many here. What you say is actual resistance to these people. Having more than a little experience with these sorts, I know "talking to them" doesn't do anything - you really can't talk people out of the cognitive dissonances they've adopted, unless THEY initiate their own doubt - but you can get a hundred buddies and sit i nthe street. Either they turn around and you've screwed up their big day, or they try to walk over you and you get to defend yourself.

The left needs to start putting the "active" back into "activism."

[JDPriestly]

41. But the protest should be non-violent.

People kneeling in prayer on the side of the street with signs commemorating the millions dead at the hands of the NAZIs would have been appropriate. Moving in any way against the NAZIs to respond to the NAZIs is inappropriate.

[Chulanowa]

45. "Appropriate," huh?

What about "effective?" See, this stupid shit is why the left has no power in this country; this hippy-dippy bullshit that makes people think holding up a sign is "protest". or that putting naked college girls in a cage is a smart way to protest meat. It's fucking idiotic.

Take your idea. What, do you think you're going to shame the Nazis like that? Ever dealt with these people, JDP? I don't mean "read about them online" I mean, face-to-face. Ever gotten into a shouting match with 'em? I've kicked the shit out of a few - and had the shit-kicking returned a few times, as well. Let me tell you something; if someone has a fucking SS skull and bones tattooed on their scalp and is marching down the street waving a Swastika flag and singing Prussian Blue lyrics, they are not easy to shame. Holding up lists of people killed by the assholes they admire? THAT'S WHY THEY ADMIRE THEM!!!

Basically what you're describing is passivity. It's a form of acceptance, and frankly it's a form of masturbation. What you are doing is letting these people know that you can't be bothered to really confront them. The whole reason you bother showing up at all is so you can pat your own back afterwards. It's not a protest, it's self-gratification. You want to be able to congratulate yourself on not rocking the boat and acting "appropriately" and not making a bad image for yourself, and the sooner the better 'cause you have to get back to DU and raise hell about Harry Reid and his dry-ass powder! Like masturbation, pacifism makes you feel good, but isn't that useful for getting anyone else to share the joy.

You go ahead and sit there on the sidewalk, whacking off behind your little sign that, I assure you, will make these guys very embarassed

...Deep down inside, though they'd never show it, sure.
You're not going to accomplish a goddamned thing, and when someone torches the local Catholic church, you can smile in the mirror the next morning and go "Golly gee, I'm so glad I didn't upset those Nazis!"

Do I think these assholes should be pelted with rocks? of course not.

That's what bricks are for.

[JDPriestly]

57. Yes. I lived in Austria, Germany, France and the United Kingdom

and ran into some hardcore NAZIs and NAZI sympathizers (real ones) over the years.

You have to understand that you cannot change the minds of the NAZI fanatics. What you can do is to prevent their message from becoming acceptable. In peaceful protests, your goal is not to "shame" the NAZIs. Of course, you are correct. That will not work. Your goal is to awaken people who disagree with the NAZIs to the innate brutality of the NAZI philosophy and the danger of their action.

When you respond violently to NAZI violence, you confuse people who are poorly informed about what the NAZIs as opposed to you are about. Violence is violence to the uniformed observer. You look just as bad, just as violent, just as dangerous as the NAZIs.

You need to contrast your methods with those of the NAZIs. Imitating the NAZIs, responding in kind does not make it clear to the majority of people who are fairly rational and who love peace what the difference is between what you stand for and what the NAZIs stand for.

You sort of become a NAZI yourself in the eyes of the uninformed. That is why non-violence works. It informs the uninformed about what side the violence is on. Most people will choose non-violence.

[Chulanowa]

63. It's not performance art, good god

See, this is what I'm talking about. I'd like to think we're in agreement over the danger of this philosophy; and I'm sure your time in Europe has given you a good view of the sort of "fun" that travels in these fuckers' wake. We both know that their movement hinges on bringing fear to those they dislike, threatening them, destroying their property, and trying to rouse the community against the "outsiders" - and I'm sure you're just as aware that these efforts are more successful than comfort allows.

And your primary concern is how you look. You're too busy biting your knuckle and wondering what to wear that wouldn't rub someone the wrong way to actually stand up.

Let me tell you something. The at-home audience already hates these fuckers. You don't need to convince them that Nazis are bad people; that's already well-ingrained into our culture. That's why "nazi" is epithet; if you call someone a nazi, you're calling them an oppressive, racist pile of shit, and NOT actually suggesting they follow the political philosophy of National Socialism. It's even got four letters, so it fits right in.

So. You're not going to convince the at-home audience to dislike Nazis more than they already do - Mulehead's opinion of "shoot 'em all" is a pretty popular sentiment. And as you said, you're not going to win the Nazis over to reason.

So what's the purpose of protesting them?

You stand up to them. You let them know, on no uncertain terms, that you will not be intimidated, that they are unwelcome, that leaving swiftly is in their immediate self-interest, and that a return visit will not be tolerated. You protest for their benefit. The Nazis are the ones you speak to. They are the ones you demonstrate your unity and power towards.

I do not advocate violence - I advocate defense. I don't advocate attacking Nazis - I advocate resisting them. Take the streets they want to march on, and do not budge. If they touch you, feel free to show them why doing so is a very bad idea; don't initiate it, but don't take any shit, either.

Your "hold up a sign" method might as well be "stay at home and watch Hogan's Heroes"

[NuclearDem]

64. So you want to stand in the way of a Nazi demonstration

(As is your right to counterdemonstrate)...but then, when they approach you, you want to basically tell them if they touch you, things are going to go bad? Sounds to me like you WANT them to touch you, just so you can get your sick thrill out of "going for the diaphragm", and "wiring their jaws shut".

You know what that's called? When you say something deliberately to hope to get a violent response out of someone? It's called "fighting words." That's one of those restrictions on free speech you keep bragging about. You know, call it what you want--"defense", "resisting"...you're basically hoping to get in a fight with one of these guys. You're basically a Freeper and teabagger in disguise.

But despite what you think, nonviolence works. It's how we ended segregation in the South. It's how we got our anti-war message across. It's how we got women the right to vote. It's how we work.

[Chulanowa]

67. Nope

I want to stand in the way of a Nazi demonstration (as is my right to counter-demonstrate - someone should inform the police in Arizona.) When they approach me, I invite them to scream and yell and point and stomp and holler and bitch and moan and gesticulate and do whatever else the fuck they want. If they make an effort to move me, it's their ass, though. They already know this, I don't have to do any goading at all. They'll either halt or find a way around. There's a system in place here, NuclearDem.

I'm not "hoping for a fight." I'm much rather they realize they're not going to get their way, and go home. I'm simply stating that if they decide they want to violate that line in the sand, that last little vestige of politeness, then I'm capable of doing unto others.

Nonviolence works. Pacifism does not. There's a vast gulf of difference between the two. And it's why the suffragist movement, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement worked, while the anti-war movement has been a complete failure. I'd rather anti-fascism go the way of the first three than the latter one.

[JDPriestly]

66. I am very seriously troubled by the fact that you are advocating

violence on DU.

[Chulanowa]

68. I advocate violence as much as you support Naziism.

Which is to say, I outright state I do no such thing.

[NuclearDem]

70. Hmm...that's not what you said

"I'd do five years if it meant a facist fucker like these had to have their jaw wired shut."

"Kicking the shit out of a Nazi does not strip them of their right to free speech
Just their ability to exercise it.

Aim for the diaphragm."

"Do I think these assholes should be pelted with rocks? of course not.

That's what bricks are for."

Your words, not mine. You. Are. Advocating. Violence.

[Chulanowa]

71. Do you have any concept what "advocacy" means?

Okay. I guess that second one can be taken that way. It was meant in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but yeah, I see where you're going on that one. Yeah, you're right. Over the top there.

The first one? Like I said to your post below. I'm in full agreement that it's a crime, it's illegal, it's wrong, and people who do things like that need jail time. Stating that I wouldn't have any problem with suffering that penalty is not advocacy. It's saying "If I did this stupid thing, I feel the penalty would be worth it."

My temper tends to flare when talking about people who want me dead. I's keep mah uncivil tongue to mahseff, yassa massa suh!

[NuclearDem]

72. Don't do that

Just because I think racist puke shouldn't be answered with incivility and that I think we should be above fantasizing about or even considering violence against other human beings, doesn't put me in league with slaveowners. Shame on you.

You know what? I take my apology back about my ancestors. Because when my grandparents came over from Europe after the war, how do you think they were viewed? Yeah, they appeared white, but unless they were just going to keep their mouths shut for the sixty years they lived here, it was going to be immediately obvious they weren't part of the "good ol' boys". How do you think a thick Eastern European accent seemed during the height of the Cold War?

My grandparents got looks. People talked about them behind their back. Christ, there were people IN CONGRESS who wanted nothing more than to see them all deported back behind the Iron Curtain. The entire Latvian community was scrutinized by the authorities because they were proud of their Eastern European heritage, and because apparently, anyone speaking in a language that even SOUNDED Russian were suspicious.

But you know what? The community shrugged it off. They didn't assault cops. They didn't lash out with incivility when idiot rednecks accused them of being dirty Commies. They went on with their lives. Got jobs. My grandparents built their own house, my uncle's house, and a lakehouse. They paid their taxes. They voted. They were active in their community, even beyond their Latvian friends. They made America a better place for everyone DESPITE an entire country (not just a group of racist skinheads) being prejudiced against them.

And you know what? They won. We mock the people that run around screaming Cold War paranoia, their cries and hatefulness land on deaf ears. We moved forward, and not ONCE did my grandparents, their community, or any Latvian community in America take up arms against the people that hated them. They lived their lives, they lived the American dream, DESPITE everything.

That's why I despise incivility. Because I know the exact opposite WORKS. And I have faith in America that it'll keep working. Living well is the best revenge.

[Chulanowa]

75. Again, you don't get it

It's not that you don't think "incivility" should be used that spurs me to throw Amos and Andy at you - it's the fact that even though you've admitted you don't know what it's like on this side of things, even though you acknowledge the situation is different, you STILL think I should just shut the fuck up. Why? Becuase you obviously know better, despite your own admitted ignorance. THAT'S why I threw that language in your face.

As for the rest of that post... Dude. Seriously, don't. Just... don't. It's like the silly old "My ancestors were irish and that's just like if my ancestors had been black!" argument I see too frequently.

Don't get me wrong, here. I'm not saying "NuclearDem is a racist!" - we have actual racists on this board, and you don't fall in their number. But you really just don't get it. Maybe the both of us should just take a big breath and talk about those turnips.

[NuclearDem]

77. Alright, I've tried to be nice

But this is just pushing me.

YOU don't get it. You were born here, in America, where there are laws protecting minorities, where, while there may be groups of people who hate because of race, it's far from the institutionalized racism of the Confederacy or Jim Crow. Nazis are hated by the vast majority of the American people. Racists are hated by the vast majority of the American people. The US government IS on your side, despite there being some questionable assholes at nearly every level of government. There's an entire agency of the Federal government aimed at protecting and aiding Native Americans.

And no, it's not like "my grandparents were Irish, so it's the same thing!" Being Irish in the UK didn't make you an automatic candidate for prison or slave labor. When the Irish came over, there wasn't a vast US government propaganda machine targeting them. There wasn't a vast national distrust of white people from Western Europe. Again, some distrust and racism from the KKK, from fascists, from some of the American people, but it was FAR from institutionalized racism.

You don't think my family knows what it's like? Then fine. You can say that because you didn't live in a country where up until about 25 years ago even being ETHNICALLY different from the Slavic Russians meant you were either going to be conscripted into the Red Army, sent to prison, locked in a gulag, sent to work in the Siberian mines, or treated as second-class citizens. You didn't live in a country where the government dominated your way of life and attempted to destroy your culture, and if you resisted, murdered your family members from just being different all the way through the end of the 20th century. You didn't live in a country where you HAD to take up arms and kill just to save your family, where you literally HAD to beat someone down and "wire their jaws shut" or throw bricks at them so they wouldn't inform on you, or shoot you, or take you to prison.

My grandparents came over to get away from all that. And when they got here, in the late 40s and early 50s, when the Cold War was starting to get hot, there WAS a vast government propaganda machine targeting Eastern European immigrants and people from behind the Iron Curtain. The majority of Americans distrusted or even HATED them, because they were viewed as potential enemies of our very way of life, as Communist sleeper agents. In fact, there might as well still be that same purveying bigotry in America--all you have to do is turn on Fox and watch them go on anti-Communist rants, or find your red-blooded American good ol' boys who still buy into the Cold War propaganda, and that thick Eastern European accent will STILL get you some nasty stares or even verbal insults.

But you know what? My grandparents didn't HAVE TO FIGHT when they come over. They didn't have to smash faces in, they didn't have to kill anyone, they didn't have to take ANY violent action against the people who hated them or wanted to see them deported. They stuck together, blended into the community, and lived the American dream DESPITE everything.

So for you to tell me I can't talk about institutionalized bigotry and hatred just because I'm not black, or Hispanic, or Puerto Rican, or Native American and for you to draw false equivalencies like that, just disgusts me. My grandparents went through hell. They very damn well know how bigotry is fought in America, because they did it, and they survived it, without anyone that hated them getting beat down.

Which is why I find this notion that we have to hunt down every racist in America and tell every one of them that we find their message disgusting, nonsense. If my grandparents can live the American dream in the face of bigotry without resorting to violence or getting in someone's face, then we damn well can too.

[Chulanowa]

78. I want you to look at something you just posted.

"They stuck together, blended into the community, and lived the American dream DESPITE everything."

I'm sorry but no. You don't know what institutionalized bigotry and hatred are like. I'll grant your grandparents did; I'm certainly not belittling their experiences in the Old Country. But on these shores, they got to be just another white face. Some people would have looked at them oddly. Witch-hunting senators would have tried to expel them. That's bad, sure. But they had the ability to, as you say, "blend into the community."

If your grandparents watched a bunch of fascist skins stomping down the street outside their house, saluting and chanting, what do you think their reaction would be? I don't know them, but I have trouble imagining they would share the casual indifference of their grandchild.

[herbm]

84. Back around 1958-59 my family live in what was called a DP neighborhood.

DP = displaced persons. Refuggees from WWII. We had people run from the Nazis and some who had collaberated. My brother , sister and I were always the Germans in our war games. We all had all sorts of military equipment - battalion caps, belts, helmets, bayonets, canteens, packs etc from every sort of military force from Europe. We decided we needed a flag, too, as the designated Germans. My uncle made one of a swaztika on a red caution flag we got off a new telephone pole before it was installed. We goose stepped around the block and made two corners before an older man - a DP - from Yugoslavia vaulted an almost 4 foot cast iron fence, grabbed the flag and stuck it into his pocket letting us know that while we were good kids we didn't know the true meaning of that which we marched to.

I understand free speech and how a Nazi rally gets to be nothing but ugly regardless the consequences.

People don't get to live a free life despite reality, they get it by changing reality.

[Xicano]

80. +10

Well said brother!

:hi:



Peace,
Xicano

[Mulehead]

30. Um,

If your father narrowly escaped death in the Ardennes Forest in 1944 at the hands of SS Kampfgroup Peiper as a US GI and he told you as a child that if you ever see Nazis marching down Main Street to take the 8mm Mauser that he shipped home after the war and shoot the fucking bastards right between the eyes, you might not be so ready to afford them the same rights to march "peacefully" down the street. Nazis, Auschwitz, Final Solution, Zyklon B. Nazis. Not, Boy Scouts. Not the Junior League. Nazis. They have a track record, you know. They are one of the most barbaric groups of fucking anti-human scum pieces of shit to ever ooze out of the human slime pool. Nazis have rights? I'm sorry, I never got that memo.

Nazis show up in my neighborhood, it's December 1944 all over again, and I got me some 8mm lead to welcome them with. Sorry, dude, you fail. Go back to Freeper Nation. What, you didn't understand my reasoned and nuanced argument? Well, then, FUCK YOU.

[bowens43]

81. you have a very misguided understanding of the 1st amendment.

Free speech Does not mean that you can say what ever you chose without consequences. The government did not stop these idiots from speaking, in fact they protected them.

[lebkuchen]

7. Such a march is illegal in Germany

It's also illegal to show the swastika on anything in Germany, even on items in flea markets.

Amazing that the US is headed in this dismal direction...

[rawbean]

10. free speech does not mean that anything goes

you don't have the right to yell ''FIRE'' in crowded theaters, nor should a message of hatred and divisiveness be given free reign. Notice how eager the cops are to protect the rights of goosesteppers! LOL Hurry with the popcorn, Hogan's Heroes is on, starring those wascally GIs and their fun loving, adorable, Nazi captors.!

[CLANG]

12. You are horribly wrong, and ignorant about free speech.

How can you be a liberal and think that way?

[Chulanowa]

18. No, he's very correct

There are legal standards for what falls under protected speech. Ever heard of someone being arrested for inciting a riot? They weren't engaging in protected speech.

It's sort of like how the right to bear arms doesn't entitle you to a private H-bomb.

[CLANG]

20. There are legal standards for what falls under protected speech.

True, but there is nothing in the reports I have seen that indicating they were inciting a riot.

[Chulanowa]

21. And that's where police bias comes in

Arizona police, covering the asses of neo-Nazis? Why, that's just unthinkable!

:rofl:

[CLANG]

23. Well, if that's what you say, fine. I haven't seen any proof of that.

[Mulehead]

32. Dude,

Show up in my neighborhood as a Nazi, and guess what, you just incited a riot.

[CLANG]

44. Dude, then you would be arrested.

[Chulanowa]

46. And?

I'd do five years if it meant a facist fucker like these had to have their jaw wired shut.

[CLANG]

51. By all means, be my guest.

[NuclearDem]

54. Wait! I've seen that picture before...or something really close to it

Channeling the teabaggers, are we? We don't like what you say, so we'll beat your face into the ground for saying it! And yeah, be my guest if you wanna beat up a Nazi...it'll give us true freedom lovers 2-5 years without you.

And kudos to Clang and all the other true Americans in here for standing up for other people's rights even if you don't agree with them. :fistbump:

[Chulanowa]

60. False Equivalency

I hate to break reality into your ideological bubble, but not all situations are equal. Not all opinions are valid. Not all speech is protected. This is not a question of "agree vs. disagree," it's a question of "dangerous vs. not-dangerous."

Nazis and their ilk are dangerous, and should be resisted with all possible measures. Their "rallies" are accompanied by in increased incidence of violence and vandalism against minority groups. Their philosophy is, in a single word, terrorism. They seek to spread fear and unease among the people they dislike. Their methods are intimidation and threat against the vulnerable of society.

If you want to compare the two pictures, the ones doing the stomping in your picture is the one getting stomped in mine.

Yes, if you show up in the neighborhood with a bunch of your friends, waving a Swastika and espousing a philosophy that revolves around the deaths of people like me and my neighbors, I will take it as a threat and respond accordingly. That's the part you're missing - and I imagine you miss that part because you don't happen to fall under any of the targeted groups. Life must be awfully comfy for you, sir!

You can grab your crotch and feel good for defending the Nazi's right to speak if you want. I'll be over here being more concerned with people's right to live without threats and intimidation targeting them on the basis of religion, kin color, gender, or sexual orientation.

[NuclearDem]

62. You advocated not a few posts ago to beating people to a pulp for their ideas

I've got no reason to keep this conversation going with you. You don't respond to hate with violence. I'm in the military, but when WBC showed up in California and picketed at the base I was stationed at, calling me and my friends babykillers, f**s, and saying we all deserved to die, what did I do? Did I go out and pummel them? No. Because I'm better than that. And I'm not going to give them the time of day and attention they crave.

Want to resist the Nazis? Just don't give them the time of day. Don't give them airtime by assaulting them. If they say something hurtful, denounce it, let the world see how ugly these people's ideas are, but don't take violent actions against them.

You want to talk about terrorism? Using fear to get people to listen to your ideas, or intimidate them from expressing themselves? Then you, sir, are a terrorist. Every terrorist thinks his cause is righteous...but threatening to beat someone until their "jaws are wired shut" if they don't stop spewing their beliefs makes you no better than your average al-Qaeda operative.

And since you're completely aware of my ethnic and national background, I'll just bow to you on that. Because apparently, since you're so educated, I guess I don't come from a family that watched their great grandparents, uncles, friends, and countrymen being dragged off to not only the war factories and death camps in Germany, but to the Soviet gulags following each country's invasion of their homeland. I guess I don't know jack shit about being part of a persecuted group, like Eastern European immigrants during the Cold War. I guess Latvians have just had it easy, huh?

I know EXACTLY how to respond to hate, because my entire family has seen it for generations. And it's not by stomping the other person's head in. And you know what? I hate Nazis. They sent my grandpa to a war factory where he had his leg crushed by a truck. But I'm not going to let that change my feelings about how my fellow Americans are treated. You assault one of my fellow countrymen for expressing an opinion, no matter how vile, and I will make it my life's work to see that you spend some time in prison. That's not how the America I know and love operates. If that's your America, then you just sicken me to the core.

[Chulanowa]

65. No, I didn't "advocate" it

I have said I shed no tears when it happens. And I said that if it were me, I'd accept all due penalties for my crime with no reservations. Of course it's illegal. it's criminal assault and battery, and you can do serious time for it. And that is completely right. I agree with you that people who do so need jail time. It's just that for me, personally, it'd be worth the time. Advocacy would be encouraging others to do so. if you read my other posts, my position isn't "run out and attack them," it's "stand your ground and exercise self-defense if needed."

Very well. I can accept the mantle of "terrorist" if it is for the goal of keeping my friends and family protected from people with a proven record of racist violence. If you think calling me a name is going to dissuade me from this position, that Nazis and their like pose a threat to people and need to be vigorously opposed, then you're not going to get anywhere.

I never said a word about your ancestors. I'm talking about you. Let me paint a scenario for you.

You and I are sitting in some bar, having a beer and discussing the local turnip harvest or some shit. Five motherfuckers wearing their cute little armbands and iron crosses stomp in looking for trouble. Seeing the two of us, they head over. Now here's the question; What phrase do you think is more likely to come out of their mouths?
Is it A ) "Hey, you fucking Latvian piece of shit, get the fuck out of my bar!"
or is it B ) "Hey, you fucking spic piece of shit, get the fuck out of my bar!"
Trust me, buddy. Unless you're holding up a sign and singing "Dievs, sveti Latviju" they're not going to know you're Latvian. Even then they wouldn't give a shit - you're white, and that's what counts for them. me? I'm Choctaw, and I kind of stand out in a crowd of you pinkskins, let's just say.

YOU are a potential recruit at best, and a dumbass at worst to them. I'm just a mud person who needs to swing from a tree.

So pardon me if my level of concern is a little greater than your own, kay?

[NuclearDem]

69. I never said we shouldn't oppose the Nazis

I just said smashing their faces in isn't the way to do it. If you're sitting in a bar and just yucking it up with some friends and one of those Nazis comes in and assaults you, by all means, defend yourself. But it just seems from what you were saying that you want to be out there LOOKING for a fight.

All they want is an excuse for you to act violently. All they want is to use that as racial propaganda that "one of THEM hit us at our peaceful demonstration!" You're essentially doing their propaganda work for them. If the Nazis show up at a rally, and then videotape just them standing around spewing racist nonsense, do you think that'll score as many hits on their website as one where "THOSE people" start chucking rocks or assaulting them, provoked or not?

Yes, they're racists. They should be told they're not welcome, and their message is despicable. But after that...just leave em. Their kind will die out. As America moves forward, they'll be left in the dust as relics of a barbaric era with no place in our world.

And I'm sorry about losing my cool about my ancestors...I was a little angry and I flipped my lid. You're right, you definitely see more discrimination than I do. My apologies.

[Chulanowa]

73. Look, I know you mean well...

But this "ignore it and it'll go away" thing is bullshit. What you're really saying is "Out of sight, out of mind." You have nothing to worry about from these people, except they make a noise you dislike - so you close the drapes and turn up the TV and voila, for you they're gone and you can get your comfort level back.

Take a look on Youtube for these confrontations. Yeah, the ones that break out in fights get more hits. That's bad, right? Read the comments. The only people you'll find shedding tears for the nazis are either openly supportive of the Nazi message anyway - or they're the pearl-clutching type who are masturbating to their own flawless idealism. The phrase "useful idiot" pops to mind.

You're not going to find anyone going "Gosh, I hated the Nazis and was totally disgusted by their message, until I saw them get hit by rocks, maybe I was wrong!"

These fuckers, and those like them are a perennial aspect of our culture. They don't "fade away." They don't "die out." They go dormant when vigorously opposed, and bloom back when they're not. Right now, Muslims, Jews, Latinos and Gays are all seeing magnificent upspikes in violence and threats against them. You can hear no evil and see no evil all you want, but the evil is still out there, isn't it?

I'm not asking anyone to run out with baseball bats and start a mob brawl. I just want all you goddamned ninnies to stop fretting and getting the vapors about how uncouth activism is, and actually STAND UP AND FUCKING DO SOMETHING.

[NuclearDem]

74. You're completely misunderstanding what I mean

I'm not defending Nazis. Not. One. Bit. I'm not saying Nazis should be painted as the victims when riots break out at their rallies. I'm saying we're supposed to be above that. We're supposed to be above giving into our dark and violent sides and letting reason take over.

Fact is, yeah, this sort of racist filth happens every so often in American history. But it DOES die out, even if only temporarily. You can say what you want, but the persecution of Native Americans these days simply isn't what it was in the Old West. Neither is the persecution of the Chinese or the Irish the same as it was. Neither is the persecution of Eastern European immigrants. In time, the persecution of Muslims, gays, and Latinos will drop significantly, until it's a small number of ostracized radicals doing it. It's what American history has proved time and time again. And yeah, it does demand vigorous opposition, but vigorous opposition doesn't have to mean we go out and lynch them or deny them their rights as Americans. We come together as a country, tell them they're not welcome and we won't stand for their bullshit.

I'm not against activism. I don't know how to tell you for the 5489489th time that I'm out in the streets shouting down Nazis and counterdemonstrating every time they're in town here in the Midwest. I'm against activism where violence is involved. We can show them how much better we are than them by showing signs, not rocks.

[Chulanowa]

79. It does not "die out"

"I'm not defending Nazis. Not. One. Bit. I'm not saying Nazis should be painted as the victims when riots break out at their rallies."

I saw something interesting on a somewhat related thread. You've heard the story of the Phelps clan having their tires slashed at a funeral protest, right? And how the shopowners of the town refused to sell them new tires? Right, well, we had one poster making the argument that those shopowners should be arrested and thrown in prison for "Violating the WBC's right to free speech!"

I'm saying we need to get in the Nazi's faces about their message. That is OUR right to free speech. I'm getting a definite "we should sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up" vibe from you. I don't need to show off for the cameras. I don't need to demonstrate my moral and integral superiority to these people; it's inherent.

"You can say what you want, but the persecution of Native Americans these days simply isn't what it was in the Old West"

In the old west, it was open warfare. Of course the persecution today isn't what it was, for the simple reason there's very little left to persecute. We were basically eradicated and then turned into cartoons. However, persecution remains; Ever been to Pine Ridge? Alaskan villages? Why shoot an indian when you can just starve him?

"Neither is the persecution of the Chinese or the Irish the same as it was."

Chinese are often portrayed as the "model minority." That weird stereotyping isn't as active as the persecution the railroad builders got; but then, the Japanese largely took their place during WW2, and after that, South Asians. As for the Irish? They're white, buddy. Dude straight off the boat would have stood out as irish, but his kid looks and sounds and walks and dresses like an American. "Persecution of the Irish" or the Germans, or Italians, or X European group is pretty grossly exaggerated.

"And yeah, it does demand vigorous opposition, but vigorous opposition doesn't have to mean we go out and lynch them or deny them their rights as Americans."

I don't want congress to shut them up. Nor do I want to lynch them (Despite the schadenfruede that would evoke.) You see, I lack the ability to actually deny someone a right, and murder is certainly not something I support.

These movements do not die out. They do not fade away. They stay and grow until people actually get up and do something about it.That's WHY this is cyclical. The movement starts, people stand up to oppose it, it dies down, people get complacent and it comes back.

Holding a sign is not "vigorous opposition."

[CLANG]

11. I'm so sick of people not understanding the first amendment

Free speech must be for everyone, or it will be for no one. The best thing these people could have done was to just stay home and ignore it all. These are the same geniuses that demand to see Barack Obama's birth certificate.

[Mulehead]

31. No, sorry,

World War Two was about rights and humanity. The Nazis do not have rights. They are Nazis. The gave up their rights when they cooked the rights out of 12 million innocent people. I have rights, you have rights, because we have not yet infiringed upon the rights of others. Once you subscribe to a group that has a demonstrated track record of denying rights to others you become a dangerous lunatic. and you lose your rights. Fail.

[CLANG]

43. Well, then you have no understanding of the law.

[Chulanowa]

48. Kicking the shit out of a Nazi does not strip them of their right to free speech

Just their ability to exercise it.

Aim for the diaphragm.

[JDPriestly]

42. CLANG, I'm with you.

There are very effective ways to protest this kind of march -- ways that are completely non-violent and that gain sympathy for the non-violent movement.

This looked like some kind of fake demonstration against the NAZIs. What good does it do to protest the violent if you use violence in your protest?

[tularetom]

13. I hate Illinois Nazis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EoOZKjAjlk

I like this ending better...

[Better Believe It]

15. Cops defending Nazis and attacking anti-Nazi protesters. That's standard operating procedure.

How many of those cops are Nazis or Nazi sympathizers?

[Prana69]

24. Did this reporter really just use the phrase "Peaceful march" ...

.. when talking about a rally of neo-nazis? Jeesh!

There is no such thing as a peaceful neo-nazi. The ideology is founded on violence and oppression and can't survive in a peaceful world.

Peace and Nazi are poles apart.

P69

[Blacksheep214]

25. Attention Tea Baggers!

Did you see anyone resembling our President marching with the Neo-Nazis?

Did you even see Neo-Nazis?

I didn't think a Tea Bagger could tell the damn difference!

[RBInMaine]

26. How do you suppose the neo-nazis vote? FOR TEABAGGERS !

[NuclearDem]

29. I'm shocked

Not because of the Nazis, but by some of the comments being posted here.

Look, is Naziism disgusting? Yes. Do I hate those people's ideas with all my heart and soul? Hell yes.

But the second we start going after them for holding a rally and simply waving some flags on the basis that their message is hateful, what's next? Those Nazis weren't starting a riot. They weren't advocating the overthrow of the government (at least not at the rally). They weren't calling for people's deaths (again, at least not at the rally).

They went through the legal procedures and got permits to have a rally to have their (albeit, ugly) voices heard. When the counterprotestors came out, THEY were the ones who started throwing rocks and assaulting people. It's awful when the NAZIS at the rallies are the ones being the most level-headed and peaceful.

You guys HAVE to respect their right to speech and free assembly, even if you find their message abhorrent and disgusting. Otherwise, you're no better than the Hitler regime.

As for the people leveling insults at the cops, while I don't particularly like cops either, they WERE protecting a legal rally from people who were turning violent and throwing rocks. Don't label them all as Nazis or sympathizers just because they kept some people you don't like safe.

Sorry for the tough love, but I was simply appalled at some of the things that were said here.

[Mulehead]

33. 12 Million Americans

served during WWII to defeat fascism. They didn't serve because they looked good in a uniform. The Nazis represented (and still do) pure, unadulterated evil. You want to give them the rights that you and I earned because we engage in civil discourse and respect the rights of others? Humans have rights. Universal rights. Nazis? Do they have rights? Did they have rights in 1939-1945? Yes, they got the right to a fair trial in 1946. And they were found guilty of war crimes. And they were hung by the neck until dead. Do their "neo" descendants deserve more? Fine, march down my street, carry your Nazi bullshit to its inevitable outcome, and then come cry to me when an anti-fascist like me does the same thing my anti-fascist father did in in 1944. What, you are going to win me over with your eloquent Nazi rhetoric? Sorry, Gaulieter, you have a track record. I don't have to listen to it. I don't think we ever signed a peace treaty with the fucking Nazis, did we? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[NuclearDem]

35. That's absolutely the most ignorant nonsense I've ever heard

The Nazis in Germany aren't the same people marching in Arizona. My grandfather fought the Soviet Union during the occupation of his homeland, does that mean I have the right to deny the rights of every member of the CPUSA?

In fact, last I checked, those are AMERICANS, dammit. They have the same rights you and I have because they're AMERICANS. Disgusting ideas or not, you have absolutely NO right to say they have none, you fascist sack of shit. And thanks for pissing all over the graves of all those Americans you just exploited to make your hate-filled ignorant "point." You're no better than a goddamn Freeper.

[Mulehead]

36. No, you and I are Americans.

But once you self identify with the same folks that brought about 45 millions deaths of innocent people because of ideology, then you cease to be prosaic forms of human life. You become a Nazi. What part of the whole Nazi thing do you find yourself attracted to, there Gaulieter?

The death camps? The gassing and barbed wire? The ovens?

Ooooh, these are new improved, American Nazis. They are really nice people. They deserve rights because they identify with really nice people who really respect the rights of others.

Fail.Sorry. You Fail.

[NuclearDem]

37. What the...

They deserve rights because they're Americans. They don't shed their American citizenship just because they identify with a group that has evil ideas.

Apparently freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience are completely lost on you.

Again, it's really easy just to Google search for FreeRepublic. You'll fit in better there. We here believe in freedoms for all, no matter what their ideology says.

You know, like Americans should.

[CLANG]

52. Your posts don't belong on this site. FR maybe?

[Mulehead]

38. Fascist POS because

I violently oppose Fascists? Damn, your logic has me just so confused. Sorry, let the Nazis march, organize, win office, and then sentence innocent people to death. The problem with Fascists and Nazis didn't just materialize in 1945. It became a problem in 1923 when not enough antifascists fought the Nazis to the death then and there. Sure, let the new, clean, pretty, American Nazis march, they pose no threat to civilization. None whatsoever. They have no track record, they do not willingly take on the blame for 45 million deaths. They don't identify with Hitler, Goering, Himmler. They don't identify with gassing Jews and Gypsies and Homosexuals and Social Democ4rates. No, unlike their victims, they have rights. Just like serial murderers. They have rights too.

They are new, improved, squeaky clean Nazis. With rights. The rights they would deny to others. Let them roll, lest we take away their rights.

You are such a sad stupid dipshit. Fuck you.

[NuclearDem]

39. Yeah

You're a fascist POS because you're willing to strip rights from a group of your fellow Americans just because of their beliefs. And from what I can tell of your attitude, if you had a gun, you would kill them all yourself. You know, ship them off to the death camps? Or just give them a bullet to the head?

The Neo Nazis in Arizona didn't kill anybody. Yes, they subscribe to the political beliefs of people that did, but THEY DIDN'T. They've committed no crime other than making a choice to follow a (however despicable) political ideology and hold a peaceful demonstration in Phoenix. What part of that is worthy of death?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's the part where you have don't have a damn understanding of how this country works. I pity you. I'm not advocating for them to run for political office, and I'm not condoning their political beliefs. In fact, if I had the chance, I would be right there in an anti-fascist demonstration shouting those bastards down.

But they're Americans. They deserve rights because they're Americans.

[Mulehead]

40. Does a Nazi have rights? Sure.

Go ahead, organize, run for office, gain power, then come for me and other undesirables later when you have your Nazi act together, say, when you take over the Arizona Legislature and start rounding up the undesirables, and then do whatever the logical outcome of your twisted ideology tells you to do. And we will be happy give you a fair trial afterwards. I won't mind, because NuclearDem says that you have the right to take control of our value neutral political system and infuse it with your values and to take your values to your logical conclusion.

Question, NuclearDem: do I just have to kick back forever as a nice law-abiding American and let the Nazis (with their stellar track record and sterling role models) get their anti-human yayas out, or at what point do I actually have to engage in anti-fascist struggle? Do I have to let them hide behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights to deny me the rights that I have or the Jews or the Gypsies or the Homosexuals or the Socialists? Do all pieces of shit have rights? Do all pieces of shit have responsibilities? When does the war against fascism start? When did it ever end? When did it just become a war of word versus a war of lead? When they act in some illegal fashion? The Nazis in Germany were both legalistic and anti-law. Are we playing a board game here? Or are they engaged in political struggle? Should their struggle for Nazism be consequence free? They have rights. Fine. So do I. They can act. So can I. Will I be a good American? Will I be a good anti-fascist? Are they the same thing? March in my neighborhood as a Nazi and find out.

Yes, I'll defend the right of an individual to march and espouse the most vile shit imaginable. But will I fight Nazis where ever and whenever I find them? Fucking A, Reichsfuherer.

Go ahead, continue to defend the rights of the Nazis. I'll be back when the popcorn is done.

[Chulanowa]

47. Something you may have missed

The first amendment prevents laws being passed to silence freedom of speech. You may have also missed that the first amendment has a gigantic fucking asterisk after it.

"* Warning - may not actually apply where you think it does."

Congress may pass no law that prevents you from speaking. But they can make laws that would detain you from getting in front of your audience. They can pass laws that get you arrested after you say your piece. They can cut power to your mic, or bullhorn over your voice. Your writings can be censored or banned, licenses you may hold to access the airwaves or public places may be revoked. The crowd you are addressing my be forcibly ejected from earshot. Why?

Because the right to speak is not the right to be heard. Funky little finaggle of the law, but that's how it runs. Remember Shrub's "Free speech zones"? Well, those were entirely legal, because no one's right to speak was being violated. Just their assumption that they get to say whatever they want wherever they want and be heard by whoever they think needs to hear 'em.

Further it does not apply to citizen-vs-citizen conflict. It is quite honestly impossible for me to impinge on anyone's right to free speech. I can't pass laws, after all. The only way I could try to violate this right, is by violating your physical safety through violence of some sort; In which case I'm facing charges of assault, kidnapping, or false imprisonment.

And lastly, the first amendment does not protect you from the consequences of what you say; this is something that feel-gooders tend to forget, since, usually, their only expression is shit nobody notices - tiny letters on big signs in a big crowd no one is looking at that makes you feel like you're contributing. If you talk about my mother and I bust your face, well, I'm not going to get in trouble for violating your speech (that's just plain ol' assault.) If your hate rally draws a crowd that pushes you out of town... Oh well. YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT VIOLATED. You can free speech all you want out in the fucking woods or something.

I don't share Mulehead's sentiments of shooting 'em - if you kill 'em they can't get any smarter and probably will never feel the warm, damp joy of urinating themselves at the prospect of marching again. I shed no tears for a nazi sack of shit with a busted scalp. Fuck her, and fuck the wastes of meat she's hanging out with.

This is one of the rare cases where "fer us or agin' us" really does apply. If you're not willing to take a stand, then shut the fuck up and go back to watching Gilligan's Island. At least the Nazi sacks of shit are willing to put their necks out and say what htey believe, while you're too chickenshit to even say "Shut the fuck up" to them.

[florida08]

50. I agree with your position

Free speech does not mean free to promote hate speech or division. This is abuse of the amendment. I would argue that the Westboro Church who hold signs that say "thank God for dead soldiers" at funerals is not protected speech but is touted as such. This country use to not tolerate such ridiculous assertions but all that has changed and not for the better.

When you allow extremism a voice it's not long before it has a foothold. Soon it's all the media reports on until it sounds like the norm. Protecting it gives credence to it and confuses the electorate. It's classic Orwelleillian and is intended to polarize rational, moral and decent judgement. It absolutely brings out the worst in our society. Especially in this political climate when the country is already angry and discouraged from being ignored by their government. Ripe for a cult-like atmosphere like the teabaggers.

Free speech means thoughtful and profound language that lifts a nation up to be better than it's lowest in society. Not to drag it back to it. The kind MLK provoked. To ignore or passively protest only allows it to strengthen. The writers of the First Amendment did not have Nazi demonstrations in mind when they wrote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,<1> promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

To assume that it will be marginalizd simply because Americans will not accept it is foolish. How do we think we got Fox News.

[NuclearDem]

53. So, I'm either a Nazi because I believe in freedom of expression for all Americans

Or I have to join the anti-fascist lynch mob here whose understanding of the First Amendment is distorted to "well, you've got the right to speak as long as it's not something I find abhorrent".

Your logic is infallible.


There's no SCOTUS ruling, no case law, and no Constitutional test that says you have to listen to them. However, SCOTUS, case law, and the Constitution say they have the right.

I DO take a stand against Nazis...I hate their ideas, and every opportunity I get, I'm out shouting down these assholes in the streets. I do everything I can to let the world know how disgusting they are. But they HAVE A RIGHT to express their opinions. If you can start citing SCOTUS case law that restricts hate speech (which you'll be hard-pressed to find; hate speech 99% of the time ends up being protected by the courts), then I'll bow to you. But until the Supreme Court rules or legislation passes that keeps them from demonstrating or expressing their opinions, then they have that right.

And you're treading on REALLY thin ice with the "speech that's considered divisive or hateful". You start saying that about Nazis, how long is it going to take before it goes to rap music? Then on to anti-war demonstrators? Then on to people calling for Bush's arrest? You see, it's called a slippery slope for a reason. I'd rather have a bunch of insignificant Nazis whose message of hate is mostly lost on Americans being allowed to demonstrate then allowing our Supreme Court or Congress to start restricting MORE people's speech.

You see, it's called freedom, it's what we do here in America. We don't blame people because of the sins of their fathers, the rational among us don't curbstomp our opponents just because we disagree, and we don't go out inciting riots because we want the guilty pleasure of anarchy that allows us to hurt other people.

FreeRepublic's open, boys. All you gotta do is register.

[florida08]

55. and that's why this country's democracy

is slowing declining. I understand what you're saying but the kind of freedom you speak of has no limitations. Freedom always has limits if it is to be preserved. We are not a direct democracy but a republic. A nation of laws that protect the innocent or are suppose to. Not anymore. You're slippery slope is exactly what has happened. The freedom to lie. If that's the kind of republic you want then so be it.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6621412

[NuclearDem]

56. Freedom of speech has plenty of limitations

But I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Nazi demonstrators don't hold the same power over our lives as the media does; what some group of hate-filled demonstrators in Phoenix says doesn't affect my perception of current events.

And there's plenty of case law and legislation out there to protect the innocent, especially from the hate that the Nazis are spreading here. Like others have pointed out, freedom of speech is restricted if it incites violence, if it recklessly endangers others, or it advocates the overthrow of the government. Hate crime legislation exists to keep the Nazis from practicing what they preach; they can spew hatred of the Jews all they want, but the second they assault a Jew or encourage others to do so, they'll be doing extra time in prison.

Of course, you might not even be talking about the Nazis, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that media outlets shouldn't be allowed to lie, since we depend on them so much for facts and news, and I vehemently oppose allowing corporations to spend all they want on campaigns, but regardless, hate speech is protected. Hate actions are not.

Good point you raise though. And said with civility too, something this thread's been lacking. :fistbump: And just FYI, my above post (#53) wasn't directed at you, it was mostly at the people who were attempting to black-and-white the issue.

[florida08]

58. I agree with a caveat

Who is deciding what speech incites violence. Where is the line? We've already had a gynocologist killed and a guard in the Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist. While the murderers may have been held accountable it doesn't change the fact they died because of hate speech incitement by others who hide behind the 1st Amendment.

I guess for me it's like Free Trade and Free Market strawman. Free to use fraud and outsourcing in the name of capitalism. On the surface they sound politically correct but underneath they allow corruption to run amok. While what happens in AZ may not affect us personally I'm sure a jewish person living there would have a different opinion.

A recent court decision says that those who wear unearned medals of valor are expressing free speech, contrary to the US Stolen Valor law that says it is punishable. Which is correct?

I could accept the 2 headed coin if both sides were being protected. But am not seeing it. The father that sued Phelps for disrupting his son's funeral won. But a federal appeals court reversed that decision ordering the father to pay all court costs.

Where is the justice? Yet the UK has banned them from the country. If were going to protect hate speech then we will live with the consquences of innocent people being abused and possibly killed. The fault is ours.

I thank you for your civility as well. I only try to give another point of view for discussion.

[NuclearDem]

59. Good points

The incitement of violence is definitely an issue. But the law says that people who incite violence or urge others to act violently aren't protected by the First. The Wanted posters in NC are a perfect example; those aren't protected. People calling for abortion doctors to be killed aren't protected; they can call abortion doctors murderers all they want, because it's their First Amendment rights, but when they encourage people to kill, they overstep their rights. It depends on how people will interpret their speech; the nuts who watched Fox and tried to attack people connected to George Soros and killed George Tiller took Fox's irresponsible speech to mean that violence has to be taken. It should be on the people making the speech to be responsible about what they say; ultimately, they can be held responsible for what people who listen to them do. Same goes with the anti-war movement...people who bomb recruiting centers take the anti-war movement's words to mean that we're at war with the military. The anti-war guys don't condone bombings at all, but it does require people to be cautious about what they say.

As for the Stolen Valor Act, I'm torn about that. I do believe it's someone's right to express themselves, and I think it's despicable to claim medals that you didn't earn, but I don't think it's up to the government to prosecute someone who has done that. It should be up to us to shame those sorts of people...but it is ultimately freedom of speech. The court was right in overturning it. Same goes for the WBC lawsuit...I hate WBC with all my heart, but they have a right to demonstrate, as distasteful and hurtful as it is. People also have a right to counterdemonstrate; which is what the PGR and other organizations have taken up. Again, let them be assholes; and let people see their asshatery. Their kind will die off not because of legal intervention, but because people will finally be sick of them and they won't have an audience to spread their filth to anymore.

Like I said, you have lots of valid points. I might disagree, but you present them well. Kudos.

[florida08]

61. and you have the last word

on the discussion..and thanks

[florida08]

76. ~

http://lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2975&go=4

[howard112211]

82. About that first ammendment issue being discussed here:

I posted this a while back in GD and it got little attention. I repost it here.

----------------------------------

On nazi assemblies, counterprotests and the first ammendment.


With regards to the recent escalation of a nazi march, I have seen people here on DU express the opinion that the counterprotestesters are at fault for not respecting the rights of the nazis to peacefully assemble, and furthermore, that the correct response which is respectful of the first ammendment of the constitution is to simply stay at home and let the nazis do their thing, because it is their right to express their views.

I think this is totally false, an I will argue here why think so.

Let's look at the actual text of the first ammendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


The way I read this, is that the constitution protects the individual from being persecuted by the state for an expression of a particular point of view. Furthermore, it protects peaceful assemblies of people from being broken up by the state.


What it does not say, is that a particular group of people has the exclusive privilege to exercise these rights in any given place or at any given time, rather than another group, and without being confronted by other people expressing different views or opinions.


In other words, any time there is a nazi protest, other people are within their rights to peacefully assemble in front of this nazi rally and express the opinion that nazis are horseshit. There is nothing in the law that says the state has to accommodate a particular viewpoint and ensure that this viewpoint has a platform. All it says is that no one will be punished for handing out bigoted pamphlets and waiving bigoted signs, and no one will be arrested for being a bigot. The nazis do not have the right to have another peaceful rally to be broken up, just because it happens to take place in an area they also want to have a rally in. They are always free to assemble in another place.

Standing in front of nazi rally, holding a sign that says "nazis are not fucking welcome" is as much a protected form of expression as the actual rally.

[Devil_Fish]

83. This is what should have happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhozx819izU