Recently, Neo-Nazis marched in Ohio and it was a disaster. we know some here favor any kind of free expression even if it's offensive to other people. I've stated that symbols and beliefs are better not put into public places such as schools, the workplace, and government property like parks. They contend this is freedom and people's right to express themselves. My claim is you are free in America to believe and practice whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you should go around provoking people who are just trying to live out their daily lives. So where do you side?
They allow NRA to march, Nation of Islam to march, Southern Baptists to march, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers to march and the Minutemen to march. All of these are provoking to certain types of people, but they allow it. I find no reason to not allow Neo-Nazis to march, even though how much I disagree with their cause.
Should souther baptist be allowed to march through a muslim neigborhood? Should the NRA march through a protestant area? I think it's one thing to march to support the uplift of the downtrodden. Marching for women rights, marching for improving one's life. But to march to oppress - that's what I question - it's like pissing to mark your terrority and I don't think that should be allowed.
Yes. They followed the law with a "peaceable demonstration". The neighborhood got baited with their filthy rhetoric. Unpopular protests such as anti-war and freedom rallies should not be met with violence. If the Constitution was scrapped, I'd change the 2nd amendment first.
are these the best examples you could come up with? do you really think protestants care about an NRA march that much? do you really think muslims care about southern baptists that much? i think violence should be prevented by proper police presence. and i think everyone should be allowed to march.
Our constitution guarntees the right to peaceful assembly. Yes neo-Nazis should be able to march. They are scum, and ignorant bigotted folks that barely qualify as humans, but this the U.S. and we need to protect the rights of all of our citizens.
Exactly. Those who rioted were the ones in the wrong here as disgusting as it may sound. You may disagree with them but you have no reason to riot over it. Just suck it up and realize that in the marketplace of ideas they've lost and this is what they must resort to. All the rioters did was make this a bigger story and give the marchers more exposure. If no riot takes place, this is not a story.
So are you saying that if a bunch of baptist walked through a Muslim neigborhood with signs saying "Muslims are evil" - then that's ok???? You support their right to do that, correct? Let's be very clear.
If the message of the demonstration is hateful, violent, and murderous in nature, are you still OK with the march if it is peacefully held, and the marchers are showing sweet smiles? On their signs, they wrote: - "I hate xxxx race." - "Kick xxxx race out of our state." - "Wipe out every xxxx from the face of the earth."
If a person is stupid enough to walk through a black neighborhood and wave symbols of hate and racial domination in their front yards - then let that person get it. Frankly, there should be a Darwin law that doesn't protect utterly stupid and pointless acts. It's so sad to see privledges abused in such a disgraceful way. This isn't what people had in mind when they wrote the bill of rights. It's a sick and twisted abuse of it. And let's not forget you aren't free to say whatever you want in this country for good reason. You can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater, you can't jokingly say you have a bomb, and you shouldn't be able to knowingly incite hate and violence then try to hide under free speech.
I am fine, it is the 1st Amendment that should be protected. Hate speech is still speech, as much as I detest it.
The First Ammendment would be pointless if it didn't protect speech or assembly that the majority found to be repugnant. IMO the answer to groups that express hateful messages is more free speech in response to such hateful speech. That said there are limits to free speech in terms of safety, the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater situation. Its a fine line when a group is so inflammatory that exercising their right to assemble will lead to violence. This is a line I would err on the side of free speech though because a very broad reading of that could allow any municipality to ban any group that most of their population doesn't like from assembling or speaking. For instance if some Cardinals fans living in Houston wanted to have their own pep rally a Herman park Houston City Hall could ban them by saying that it would anger Astros fans so much they would become violent.
The Founders did have in mind to protect unpopular and even potentially hateful speech when they put in the First Ammendment.
