Happy SS rememberance day!

[Saras]

Originally posted by Propaganda


Too bad you can't think pragmatically. Most of those anti-Nazi protestors were probably Russian anyway.

hey, still believe all the baltic people shipped off to die in siberia/arkhangelsk went there because they collaborated with the nazis? especially the ones shipped before june 22, 1941?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC American nazis prefer to march through Jewish suburbs in the mid-west instead of Washington DC. This is probably due to the absence of such organizations in Maryland and Virginia and also to the fact that Washington DC is heavily black. A nazi march through the streets of Washington DC would rapidly deteriorate into something resembling Custer's last stand.

KKK rallies are rather rare. I think that it's been more than a decade since the last one was held either in Virginia or North Carolina. I remember a group applied for permission to march through Danville VA sometime around 1988, but they were turned down. I can't vouch for the rest of the South though. OTOH Civil War re-enactments are still all the rage around here. Last year Jerry Falwell"s Liberty University held a mock trial for Abraham Lincoln. The trial for Lincoln was held by the university's pre-law club. I'll give you one guess as to the verdict. The interesting thing is that LU will probably receive permission to open a Law school next year. I guess that there's been a dearth of kangaroos applying to the bar recently.

I think most KKK rallies are in the midwest or west...

JM

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Latvia Refuses Soviet Veterans Benefits

Was that so hard to provide a citation?

It isn't right for Latvia to honor Nazis, but they shouldn't honor Soviets either. After all, the Soviets brutally repressed the country, which is the reason they welcomed the Nazis in the first place. Same thing as happened with Finland (though they had not suffered nearly the same repression).

Finland never suffered any soviet repression. OTOH, they did invade us. That kinda used up good will on our part.


Does Serb know what significance the name Katyn has for people under soviet occupation?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Odin
And other socialists wonder why I'm not a Maxist, it's crap like this, trying to twist history to fit Marxist dogma.

What you're replying to is not marxism. Marxism is an elaborate ideology, that has its merits and its flaws. I think your reflections on marxism would be better served if you examined the ideology itself, rather than thinking "Marxism is wrong because X is a dumbass and a marxist" (And this is coming from a non-marxist)

Also, don't forget that the nazis were a strong paramilitary movement that attacked commies and unionists well before taking power. Despite the presence of the SAs, it was a rightwing movement, and it was considered as a tool by the German capitalists, who couldn't rely on the police to intimidate the unions.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
My problem with that is that it violates peoples' freedom of expression. If you want to repress rights, go ahead, but then don't deny it, you pussies. You can't handle that freedom, fine.

Even as an American you're not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, nor are you free publish death threats against individuals or groups, particularily if it's a credible threat. Nazism has this strange fixation upon the extermination of certain groups of people, that's why it's banned in parts of the world where the Nazis are a credible threat. It's not banned here because the Nazis were never a credible threat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Even as an American you're not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, nor are you free publish death threats against individuals or groups, particularily if it's a credible threat. Nazism has this strange fixation upon the extermination of certain groups of people, that's why it's banned in parts of the world where the Nazis are a credible threat. It's not banned here because the Nazis were never a credible threat.

Communism has exterminated plenty of people as well, would it have been alright to ban them during the era of Eugene V. Debs because they were a 'creditable threat'? Was McCarthyism ok because the Commies where a 'creditable threat'?

And, of course, David Duke almost became Governor of Louisiana. Should we have banned him because he was, indeed, a 'creditable threat'?

Where exactly do you stop? Freedom of expression allows people with obnoxious views to speak as well.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb

Nothing events, my ass. You've invaded and killing people for less.

That would be the infamous Pig War no doubt.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Communism has exterminated plenty of people as well, would it have been alright to ban them during the era of Eugene V. Debs because they were a 'creditable threat'? Was McCarthyism ok because the Commies where a 'creditable threat'?

Back during Debs day they had other ways of dealing with commies, or didn't you know that?

And, of course, David Duke almost became Governor of Louisiana. Should we have banned him because he was, indeed, a 'creditable threat'?

Doesn't David Duke deny connections with the KKK? Banning the KKK would be OK by me anyway.

Where exactly do you stop? Freedom of expression allows people with obnoxious views to speak as well.

In Kansas they came up with a neat way of dealing with this type of group. If anyone gets hurt because of their hate speech they sue the group into oblivion. You know vanquishing hate groups into poverty might even be a better punishment than prison?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Back during Debs day they had other ways of dealing with commies, or didn't you know that?

Yeah, quasi-legal stuff that most scholars agree would be struck down today (even in this climate after the WoT).

Doesn't David Duke deny connections with the KKK? Banning the KKK would be OK by me anyway.

IMO, the KKK has the same right to free expresion as anyone else. And of course, their opponents have their rights to free expression to shout them down (as happens in every KKK march these days).

And Duke said he wasn't a part of the group, but I don't think anyone believed him. And, AFAIK, he never said he rejected their beliefs.

In Kansas they came up with a neat way of dealing with this type of group. If anyone gets hurt because of their hate speech they sue the group into oblivion.

Brilliant! That's a good way to deal with these groups. Allow them their free expression, but if they incite or a member of their's carries out some violence, sue 'em. They have their expression, but if it results in someone getting hurt, they pay the piper. If no one gets hurt, they don't pay anything.

Got no problem with that in the slightest.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Brilliant! That's a good way to deal with these groups. Allow them their free expression, but if they incite or a member of their's carries out some violence, sue 'em. They have their expression, but if it results in someone getting hurt, they pay the piper. If no one gets hurt, they don't pay anything.

Got no problem with that in the slightest.

Figures a friggin lawyer would be Ok with the sueing part.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Serb
So basicly you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
No offence, have a nice night.

I figured Bullsh1t was a language you could understand.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Figures a friggin lawyer would be Ok with the sueing part.

Yeah, the lawyer got rich and the family got funeral expenses.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Back during Debs day they had other ways of dealing with commies, or didn't you know that?

Yeah, quasi-legal stuff that most scholars agree would be struck down today (even in this climate after the WoT).

True, now we have permanent incarceration without trial for our enemies.

Doesn't David Duke deny connections with the KKK? Banning the KKK would be OK by me anyway.

IMO, the KKK has the same right to free expresion as anyone else. And of course, their opponents have their rights to free expression to shout them down (as happens in every KKK march these days).

There is a point at which speech conveys such an expectation of harm that it constitutes a form of assault. IIRC assault need not necessarily require actual physical harm, is that not true?
Oh, and I seem to recall an incident in Greensboro NC not too very long ago in which a group of blacks attempted to do just that, shout down a group of Klansmen. The Klansmen opened fire on the blacks, killing several, but got were acquited.

And Duke said he wasn't a part of the group, but I don't think anyone believed him. And, AFAIK, he never said he rejected their beliefs.

Just responding to your post. No one has ever proven that he is a Klan member

In Kansas they came up with a neat way of dealing with this type of group. If anyone gets hurt because of their hate speech they sue the group into oblivion.

Brilliant! That's a good way to deal with these groups. Allow them their free expression, but if they incite or a member of their's carries out some violence, sue 'em. They have their expression, but if it results in someone getting hurt, they pay the piper. If no one gets hurt, they don't pay anything.

Got no problem with that in the slightest.

The guy who died might have preferred a more pro-active approach. Well, we can't haul off to jail every fool who shouts "Die N****r Die?" Why not? I assure you that if someone stands outside of a court and shouts "Die judge, die" they will be hauled off to jail. Is it that some people have an inherently higher standing in the eyes of the law?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is a point at which speech conveys such an expectation of harm that it constitutes a form of assault. IIRC assault need not necessarily require actual physical harm, is that not true?

Assault is an apprehension of immediate physical violence. Klan rallies don't fall into that, because they are there to simply protest (you think they are going to try to go to war against 10 times as many protesters? In any Klan rally, the Klan is simply marching while the cops hold back the protesters who want to punch 'em in the mouth)... unless the Grand Dragon says lets kill all the Jews and blacks right now and points at them in the crowd.

Well, we can't haul off to jail every fool who shouts "Die N****r Die?" Why not? I assure you that if someone stands outside of a court and shouts "Die judge, die" they will be hauled off to jail.

Only if there is an immediate threat. You won't be hauled off to jail if you simply shout it on the court steps while the judge is inside trying a case (unless you have a molotov cocktail in your hand, of course). The guy saying "Die ****** Die" isn't representing an immediate threat unless there is a reasonable risk that he'll actually use violence rather than simply yelling and carrying on.

Is there any difference between that and some fool who says "Die Commie Die" to a flag burner? Or a preacher who says "Die Gays"? Or protestors in front of the Senate Building yelling "Die Frist Die"?

[Seeker]

Imran I vaguely recall a case from a few years ago involving a street preacher who would just scream Leviticus 20 at gays...of course thrown out...but it is interesting to note that if it's in the bible/koran/veda etc it can't be hate speech...

(not that I agree at all in the least with the idea of 'hate speech' crimes, which are crimes based on the political content of the speech rather than an immediate standard of harm like 'fire')