Racial hate, nazism and faschism prohibited by law?

[Restecpa]

Aren't web sites and everything that is endorsing / promoting racial hate, nazism and fascism prohibited by law? I am discusted by the content of http://www.stormfront.org and I was wondering how come these guys don't get FBI and other agencies all over them? Sites like this make me wonder what kinda scum we live among..

[Acro]

It's called protection of freedom of speech. As long as nothing illegal is promoted, they can say whatever they want.

[missedcall]

LOL promoting of racism is a "freedom of speech" ?

[Acro]

In this country, yes. Anyone can say whatever they want; it's protected by the Constitution.

[MediaHound]

Check out
www.cybersquattersagainsthate.com

and
www.stormfrontsucks.org

Fighting hate..one website at a time.

[jberryhill]

LOL promoting of racism is a "freedom of speech" ?

In the United States, yes.

Speech which is not controversial does not need legal protection.

There are only extremely limited exceptions, such as incitement to riot, where there is a "clear and present danger" of imminent harm. I don't think that has ever been successfully applied to printed words.

If you are a racist, and you and like-minded others would like to have a parade or public rally, then you apply for a permit just like any other group. As long as you stay within the time and place restrictions on your parade permit, and are non-violent, then you can say what you like.

Here is a picture of a typical Ku Klux Klan rally:

http://www.mysticknights.org/kkkpc.jpg

Now, do you see the police there? They are not there to stop the rally. They are there to protect the freedom of the Klan members to peaceably assemble and to speak, including the African-American police officer that you can see in the upper left. Generally what they do is to keep the Klan demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators far enough apart that nothing happens.

What we do in the United States is to put our idiots on display, so that we can point at them and tell our children very precisely the kind of person they should not grow up to be.

I think what some people don't fully appreciate about US culture is that we have a wider variety of opinions, backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and religious faiths represented here. If we started drawing lines around ideas that one group, or even most of us found "disgusting", and making those ideas illegal, it would cause more problems than it would solve. By and large, the normal reaction here to these sorts of hate groups is to ignore them - because what they crave the most is attention.

[Restecpa]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

In the United States, yes. [...]

Wow, this is quite disturbing..

I think what some people don't fully appreciate about US culture is that we have a wider variety of opinions, backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and religious faiths represented here. If we started drawing lines around ideas that one group, or even most of us found "disgusting", and making those ideas illegal, it would cause more problems than it would solve. By and large, the normal reaction here to these sorts of hate groups is to ignore them - because what they crave the most is attention.

Finding racists, nazis and fascists disgusting seems like a common sense to me. While you might see this US policy as "alowing wider variety of opinions", I see it more like an insult to the sane part of your as well as worlds population.

I can somewhat understand where you are comming from, you've made some interesting points, but I really don't think fighting racism and nazism should be considered as encroachment upon ones rights to freedom of speech.

PS: There are some countries in Europe (that I know of) that have banned fascists and nazi symbols (at least in public I think) and it doesn't make people feel like they've been robbed of their freedom of speech, at least 99% of them, apart from those few idiots who shouldn't be allowed to voice their oppinion anyway.

Public KKK or nazi rally is beyond my wildest immagination..

[namestrands]

similar laws exist in the UK, while we may not approve.. Freedom does comes at a price.

You have to understand that members of such organisations, truly believe that their way is right, who are we to argue that it is not? they might think our beliefs are wrong. We can't discriminate against people that we dont agree with, if that was the case we would all be named President Bush ;-)

[missedcall]

Originally Posted by jberryhill

In the United States, yes.

Speech which is not controversial does not need legal protection.

There are only extremely limited exceptions, such as incitement to riot, where there is a "clear and present danger" of imminent harm. I don't think that has ever been successfully applied to printed words.

If you are a racist, and you and like-minded others would like to have a parade or public rally, then you apply for a permit just like any other group. As long as you stay within the time and place restrictions on your parade permit, and are non-violent, then you can say what you like.

Here is a picture of a typical Ku Klux Klan rally:

http://www.mysticknights.org/kkkpc.jpg

Now, do you see the police there? They are not there to stop the rally. They are there to protect the freedom of the Klan members to peaceably assemble and to speak, including the African-American police officer that you can see in the upper left. Generally what they do is to keep the Klan demonstrators and the counter-demonstrators far enough apart that nothing happens.

What we do in the United States is to put our idiots on display, so that we can point at them and tell our children very precisely the kind of person they should not grow up to be.

I think what some people don't fully appreciate about US culture is that we have a wider variety of opinions, backgrounds, cultures, beliefs, and religious faiths represented here. If we started drawing lines around ideas that one group, or even most of us found "disgusting", and making those ideas illegal, it would cause more problems than it would solve. By and large, the normal reaction here to these sorts of hate groups is to ignore them - because what they crave the most is attention.

xxm that makes sense .. great analysis!

[octobus]

You have to remember that many of the "nazist" symbols were only adopted by them, not created. The most notorious one, the cross, had and has still other meanings and uses.

Secondly, opinions and actions are two different things. Should we also restrict the anti-globalisation activists from demonstrating their views or what about Union workers. Once you start resticting the freedom of speech, it becomes a lot easier to go further on with denying rights from other controversial groups as well.

few idiots who shouldn't be allowed to voice their oppinion anyway

I do admire the US for its respect for basic constitutional righs, although some of them have been limited because of the War on Terrorism. We Europeans often forget how Orwellian our own societies are. In my own country the state has even real-time population statistics! There's hardly no objections in the deabate for creating a universal DNA database!

[Restecpa]

Originally Posted by octobus

You have to remember that many of the "nazist" symbols were only adopted by them, not created. The most notorious one, the cross, had and has still other meanings and uses.

I know, however it's the manner they use it in and the message they are trying to send with it. I'm quite sure most of those who are using it don't think of it as a "symbol of good fortune" etc, but rather swastika, a symbol of nazi power and holocaust.

Originally Posted by octobus

Should we also restrict the anti-globalisation activists from demonstrating their views

Anti globalisation movement hasn't killed millions of people. Nazism has and in a most cruel way too.. Again, these are just my feelings. While I understand what you guys mean by that, I don't think it's fair to compare these hateful people to regular activists.

Are there no laws in the US against "disturbance of public feelings / peace" (or whats that phrase)?

[Acro]

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.
-Voltaire

[jberryhill]

Are there no laws in the US against "disturbance of public feelings / peace" (or whats that phrase)?

Riot, incitement to riot, assembly without a permit... there are all sorts of things that are against the law, and if it makes you feel better these groups ARE watched very closely to make sure they stay within the law. But it is not possible in the US to make it illegal for someone to express their opinion - no matter how odious.

One of the things that gets drilled into us at grade school is the notion that the American continent was originally colonized by people who came here precisely because they weren't allowed to express their opinions in Europe. The colony of Massachusetts was established by a protestant religious group that was not tolerated in England or in the Netherlands. The same is true for Pennsylvania. Maryland was a haven for Catholics - it was even named for Queen Mary.

You can say that fascism killed millions, but what about Communism? Stalin didn't kill anyone? What about Christianity? The Inquisition and Crusades were "common sense"?

While it might be "common sense" to make it illegal to say, "I hate people with a certain skin color" why is it any more sensible to say, "People who don't think my way are going to burn in Hell forever"? Plenty of people find both of those statements offensive.

We tried this sort of thing in the 1950's in the US relative to Communism, and found that policing people's thoughts and words has a tendency to spin out of control in ways that are potentially more threatening to freedom than the ravings of a few loons. Because of that experience, we have a tendency, even when we are deeply divided over issues such as the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, etc., to agree strongly on the principle that everyone should be entitled to express their opinion - but keeping a close eye on the distinction between expression and action.

If you really want to be knocked off of your rocker, check out www.godhatesfags.com. They've got a Constitutional "double whammy" going on there because they can stand on Freedom of Speech AND Freedom of Religion.

[seeker]

Restecpa, where in the EU are you located?
as far as I know, most of Western Europe, including the original EU countries are very liberal regarding freedom of speach, and are very sensitive to human rights.
For example it is against the law in the EU to collect data on individuals for whatever purpose (except for criminal charges).
This was a dispute regarding commercial ariliners in the EU, and they will not share data on who is travelling on a plane etc...

In Greece, I can easily walk down the streest with a nazi sign. No government official will stop me.
The fact that I wont make it alive for more than a few meters carrying any such sign because I will be clobbered to death by the onlookers is a different story
It is the fundemental building grounds of Western civilization that guarantees such rights, and therefore makes 'us' diffirent from countries like Iran..etc...

[jberryhill]

the original EU countries are very liberal regarding freedom of speach

Some are particularly sensitive about Nazi stuff, and have laws against it. Even eBay sales of war memorabilia bearing Nazi symbols are restricted there.

IMHO, these laws are motivated more out of a desire not to have the rest of the world think poorly of them than they are related to any public purpose within those countries themselves.

[fatter]

If you outlaw free speech, then its only a matter of time before they come after your organization wether it be boy scouts, church, private clubs etc. free speech isnt allowed when it directly could be harmful to others ie: yelling fire in a crowded building,
false reporting to police, slander,etc

[seeker]

yes, good point there.
Especially with France and Germany banning anything Nazi related, as if that would erase the historical facts.
It is time nations stopped thinking like individuals, and realize, it is humanity as a whole that failed during WWII, for that brief time, until of course, it was later 'corrected'.
I guess I am a dreamer

[jberryhill]

I guess I am a dreamer

...but you're not the only one...