Germany's flashmob neo-Nazis

[Freesia]

Intimidated by pride parades? How ridiculous. I fail to see what is so intimidating about a man dancing around with a sequinned bikini on, or women dancing on floats with tshirts proclaiming their sexuality. To compare pride parades with a bunch of people dressed in hoods and imitating the march of the Nuremburg Rally, or KKK clansmen with burning crosses, is bizarre.

 

[mlp]

To compare pride parades with a bunch of people dressed in hoods and imitating the march of the Nuremburg Rally, or KKK clansmen with burning crosses, is bizarre.

This. Even for people who think that homosexuality is a mortal sin and/or "unnatural", the comparison is ludicrous. Unless, of course, they come from some culture where heterosexuals have routinely been lynched or sent to death camps by homosexuals, and specifically have been targeted for such atrocities because they were heterosexual.

There are all kinds of limits on "free speech" in the U.S. Just because hate speech has traditionally been allowed doesn't mean that the line has been drawn at the appropriate point.

 

[das_nut]

Intimidated by pride parades? How ridiculous. I fail to see what is so intimidating about a man dancing around with a sequinned bikini on, or women dancing on floats with tshirts proclaiming their sexuality. To compare pride parades with a bunch of people dressed in hoods and imitating the march of the Nuremburg Rally, or KKK clansmen with burning crosses, is bizarre.

Obligatory link.

 

[das_nut]

There are all kinds of limits on "free speech" in the U.S. Just because hate speech has traditionally been allowed doesn't mean that the line has been drawn at the appropriate point.

But what is hate speech? Wikipedia says: "Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic". Seems like a reasonable definition, right?

Obviously, we can't tolerate speech that talks about killing a group of people based on a common characteristic, right?

Right?

But that example is absurd. Hate speech laws would never be used in that matter. Just like laws against obscenity would never be used to prosecute feminists.

 

[mlp]

You know, das-nut, you can undoubtedly find a misguided application of every law that's on the books. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should not have any laws.

 

[K-II]

It does help me see the appeal in anarchy.

 

[led.boots]

You know, das-nut, you can undoubtedly find a misguided application of every law that's on the books. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should not have any laws.

But freedom of speech is a right entrenched in the Bill of Rights, not just a law. To have true freedom, you have to put up with people disagreeing with you and saying awful things. When it imperils the immediate physical safety of others, it is legislated against, like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.

 

[uno]

Intimidated by pride parades? How ridiculous. I fail to see what is so intimidating about a man dancing around with a sequinned bikini on, or women dancing on floats with tshirts proclaiming their sexuality. To compare pride parades with a bunch of people dressed in hoods and imitating the march of the Nuremburg Rally, or KKK clansmen with burning crosses, is bizarre.

I am not intimidated by that. but i am saitsfying that it's what it represents that is what is intimidating to some people. it represents something that they are very much against. I think that they find it very unethical and are as dead set against it as others are against other things.

 

[uno]

There seems to be an attitude, especially in America, that rights only extend to people you agree with. That's not how rights work. For rights to be effective, they have to apply to the people you disagree most strongly with. Else we start chipping away at "rights" until they are no longer protecting us.

This. esp. on a site like this.

and it sucks, but it's correct. banning free speech, questionable books, etc. is not a good thing.

or, let's just hope for an end to this race so it's not even an issue!!!

 

[mlp]

But freedom of speech is a right entrenched in the Bill of Rights, not just a law. To have true freedom, you have to put up with people disagreeing with you and saying awful things. When it imperils the immediate physical safety of others, it is legislated against, like yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.

And yet there are legal limits, not just of the sort of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Again, it's a matter of what parts of life the majority feel appropriate to protect. My point is that it's not just perfectly O.K., but actually desirable, to protect ethnic groups and others from incitations to violence against them. Such incitations to violence are no less dangerous than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - that, after all, has a limit of potentially killing a hundred or so, while recent history has proven that the other can and has killed millions.

 

[mlp]

I am not intimidated by that. but i am saitsfying that it's what it represents that is what is intimidating to some people. it represents something that they are very much against. I think that they find it very unethical and are as dead set against it as others are against other things.

But it's not a matter of someone being "dead set" against something. I am puzzled that people don't see the difference:

This. Even for people who think that homosexuality is a mortal sin and/or "unnatural", the comparison is ludicrous. Unless, of course, they come from some culture where heterosexuals have routinely been lynched or sent to death camps by homosexuals, and specifically have been targeted for such atrocities because they were heterosexual.

 

[K-II]

In a way it is not free speech because they choose to be anonymous, so they are not actually expressing "themselves".

Still this has somehow yet to be explained.

 

[uno]

But it's not a matter of someone being "dead set" against something. I am puzzled that people don't see the difference:

I'm more just explaining what i think the opposite side would think/say on the free speech front. I think everyone has the right to it as much as i don't like lots of it.

 

[das_nut]

You know, das-nut, you can undoubtedly find a misguided application of every law that's on the books. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should not have any laws.

Or we should work to refine the laws and legal system. After all, if laws are only being applied when it is popular to do so, we're moving away from the rule of law and towards the rule of the mob.

We don't need rights to protect what the majority wants. We need rights to protect what the majority does not want. There's a great quote from the movie "American President" along these lines:

You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

 

[Digger]

That's a great film, and that part was one of my favorites.

 

[mlp]

Or we should work to refine the laws and legal system. After all, if laws are only being applied when it is popular to do so, we're moving away from the rule of law and towards the rule of the mob.

We don't need rights to protect what the majority wants. We need rights to protect what the majority does not want. There's a great quote from the movie "American President" along these lines:

You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: We're not talking about disagreeing opinions on abortion, animal welfare, or a myriad of other topics on which I and many others feel strongly. We're talking about movements who have as a primary purpose the death or other *getting rid of* entire segments of the human population.

Individuals get legal protection from other individuals who stalk, terrorize and threaten their safety and/or lives, yet we protect groups of people who do the same thing to other groups of people? There's no logic or sense to it.

 

[uno]

Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: We're not talking about disagreeing opinions on abortion, animal welfare, or a myriad of other topics on which I and many others feel strongly. We're talking about movements who have as a primary purpose the death or other *getting rid of* entire segments of the human population.

Individuals get legal protection from other individuals who stalk, terrorize and threaten their safety and/or lives, yet we protect groups of people who do the same thing to other groups of people? There's no logic or sense to it.

true.

 

[das_nut]

Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this: We're not talking about disagreeing opinions on abortion, animal welfare, or a myriad of other topics on which I and many others feel strongly. We're talking about movements who have as a primary purpose the death or other *getting rid of* entire segments of the human population.

Before you assume that abortion debate isn't going to be a problem, bear in mind that (1) America has had a history of religious revivals, (2) Many pro-lifers consider abortion to be murdering the unborn and (3) laws restricting free speech have been used to attack birth control in the past.

 

[FortyTwo]

People should be allowed to say whatever they want but when it comes down to movements that border on psychological terrorism and have serious potential for physical and/or mental abuse on a scale like the KKK or the Neo-Nazis then something needs to be done.

Just my two cents, I don't really feel like debating it because everything that needs to be said on the issue has pretty much already been said.

 

[Freesia]

You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

Actually, these kind of men (and women) are centre stage and run the world and have most of the wealth. Increased freedoms (ie economic deregulation) led to them becoming even more monstrous. And freedom is like money- it is a commodity. And also like money, the greatest freedoms percolate to those in society who have the most status and power and deprive those at the bottom.

So it is silly to imply that "freedom" will somehow protect vulnerable and poor people and stop malicious groups from victimising those who cant defend themselves.

It seems to be ok to protect the interests of those who wish to spew their hatred everywhere and picket funerals and create situations where it is intimidating for ethnic minorities to walk their streets, but noone ever mentions the "freedoms" of those at the bottom of the heap,

because they are not seen to have earned that freedom. Well to me unequal freedoms are not freedoms at all.