The GUTS of some people.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Hueij

Problem with that is that it isn't true... People still get horrible nightmares whenever bald shaven kids demonstrate while waving certain flags... Maybe when the last Auschwitz survivor is dead...

I can understand that. But IMO, when the government moves to censor those groups, prevents them from marching, or outlaws them, they give them a certain amout of empowerment. But I do realize that for some, watching them would be painful. Sometimes though the best way to deal them is let them talk. Let people find out exactly what they have to say and how hateful they really are. People are either going to agree or disagree.


Last year in a small town of about 4 thousand near mine, the KKK staged a rally and march. They were allowed to march through town and make their hateful speaches. But they wasn't alone. Counter protestors, white and black held their own march and basically shouted them down. Most of the KKK members simply left because they were being drowned out. In that town, they found out that they had no following what so ever.

[Goingonit]

I support the legal right of BOTH groups in this case. The guy who tore up the flag should be commended and admired, but the nazi b*astards should not be stopped from marching.

[orange]

Originally posted by Hueij
You are right, those marchers didn't... But these marchers march in the same beat...

Is that a reason to take away their rights to property, though?

[Hueij]

Originally posted by MacTBone
So, as long as their opinion disagrees with yours, and in the past people with that opinion have hurt other people, it's OK to destroy their property, and otherwise harass them. Hmmm, one group persecuting another for their beliefs, sounds a little familiar...

That's too easy... I admit I'm kind of ambigious (sp?) about all of this, but should you allow groups, that if they ever get into power would end free speech and exterminate certain people just because of their ethnic background, to openly demonstrate their ideology? And please remember, over here we have seen fascism in action...

[KrazyHorse]

If he didn't own the flag, he shouldn't have destroyed it

So he should be brought up on charges for attempting to destroy a flag that can only be of extremely limited monetary value?

Don't make me laugh. He didn't torch their meeting hall, he didn't beat them to a bloody pulp. He stepped in, grabbed a flag and vigorously expressed his displeasure. Your reaction is silly and overblown.

[mactbone]

The guy who tore up the flag should be commended and admired

So long as there is no official special treatment, it's fine if you want to admire the guy, who cares who admires who. What shouldn't happen is any court rulings that provide leniency for him based on the ideaology of the marching group. Once a precedent is set that you can harass groups with unpopular idealogies you never know what may happen. It would be far better to treat this as a normal case without bringing about any mention of ideology because if he gets off light just for that, then, like I said, it sets a bad precedent.

[orange]

Originally posted by Hueij
That's too easy... I admit I'm kind of ambigious (sp?) about all of this, but should you allow groups, that if they ever get into power would end free speech and exterminate certain people just because of their ethnic background, to openly demonstrate their ideology? And please remember, over here we have seen fascism in action...

Should we also disallow people to hold rallies for communism because of the bad things that happened under communism in Europe?

[Hueij]

Is that a reason to take away their rights to property, though?

We're talking about a g****** flag here, it's not like the guy burnt a house down...

KH, help!!

[KrazyHorse]

They're being silly. Ignore them.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by MacTBone
So long as there is no official special treatment, it's fine if you want to admire the guy, who cares who admires who. What shouldn't happen is any court rulings that provide leniency for him based on the ideaology of the marching group. Once a precedent is set that you can harass groups with unpopular idealogies you never know what may happen. It would be far better to treat this as a normal case without bringing about any mention of ideology because if he gets off light just for that, then, like I said, it sets a bad precedent.

Yes - and his right to free speech is more important than the maybe $20 he owes the a$$holes.

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So he should be brought up on charges for attempting to destroy a flag that can only be of extremely limited monetary value?

Punishment should fit the crime. He should be made to pay for the monetary value of the flag, and also be subject to any punishment in accordance with laws dealing with destruction of property.

Would you be saying the same thing if a KKK member took an American flag, or better yet, a flag with "African America pride" on it, from an African American girl, and ripped it to shreds in front of her?

Don't make me laugh. He didn't torch their meeting hall, he didn't beat them to a bloody pulp. He stepped in, grabbed a flag and vigorously expressed his displeasure. Your reaction is silly and overblown.

How is it overblown? How have I overblown anything? I don't even know if it was his flag or not!

[KrazyHorse]

Listen, if you hold up a sign claiming that "Jesus was a ***" outside a fundie church, you can expect to get your sign taken away from you. You start waving a swastika and somebody will trample it. It's low-end stuff, and no court in the world will take the time to look at it, nor should they. Beat somebody's brains in for something they say and I'll put you in jail myself.

[mactbone]

Does that mean I can take other people's banners, flags, instruments, floats, etc. and try to destroy them? Where do you draw lines? Whenever it's convenient? I'm willing to bet that had the situation been reversed and this was a parade that pro gay rights then there would be a huge witch hunt with demands for reparations on whatever was attacked plus the full extent of the law.

[Hueij]

Should we also disallow people to hold rallies for communism because of the bad things that happened under communism in Europe?

Sorry Orange, I'm not even trying to give a serious answer on this one. By asking this you show that you haven't got a clue about the sentiments in Western Europe about Communism and Nazism. We didn't have a Gulag but we did have Belsen...

[orange]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Listen, if you hold up a sign claiming that "Jesus was a ***" outside a fundie church, you can expect to get your sign taken away from you.

Maybe you can expect that, but that does not justify the sign being taken from you.

You start waving a swastika and somebody will trample it.

Though legally, they shouldn't. I'm with you that Nazism is wrong, where I separate is where you say that someone cannot promote Nazism because we feel it's wrong.

It's low-end stuff, and no court in the world will take the time to look at it, nor should they. Beat somebody's brains in for something they say and I'll put you in jail myself.

Freedom of speech cannot simply extend to those things that society recognizes as 'correct'. Else how would any change (good or bad) be promoted?