well..let's ask the Nazis, themselves. if they were in power, they probably wouldn't let you march...or express your beliefs. so there's the answer. What Would Nazis Do??
speech is free, but not all speech is protected. They can march all they want on private property, but the governemt is under no obligation to provide them with a public forum. they should not have been allowed to march.
and how about this question.. can islamic fundamentalists/sympathizers be allowed to march even it results to violence?
I was saying Neo-Nazis are the minority and those who don't like them are the majority. But the nature of most speech advocating radical political change is inflamatory and incites violence. Patrick Henry's 'Give me liberty or give me death!' was meant to incite violence against British rule. Malcolm X's call "By any means necessary!' was clearly meant to incite violence. Given the human nature a loud speech or assembly on any controversial subject is very likely to incite violence or a violent counter response. That is a risk that is inherent in having a free society but its a risk that IMO is far less than the risks of a state that seeks to limit speech and assembly on to groups and topics that don't possibly stir passions to the point of violence. I don't believe I am misrepresenting your position because you very clearly are calling for banning certain types of free speech and assembly. You would go so far as even banning free speech and assembly regarding non-political issues like fans at a baseball game. I don't believe you're calling for a blanket ban and but a ban on inciteful and even hateful speech is still a ban. What I'm arguing is that a ban on such speech opens up a huge slippery slope allowing government to ban more and more speech and assembly.
Of course they wouldn't but that's not the issue. The issue is whether as a free society with the First Ammendment groups or individuals expressing views that most people find abhorrent are still allowed to publicly assembly and speak out.
Actually, Neo-Nazis represent a majority (whites) advocating taking away rights from the minority (blacks). You've got it all wrong - you're forgetting the entire racial context that's underlying what they are doing. Secondly, unlike Henry Payne and Malcom X, who advocated the betterment of their own people, Neo-Nazis advocate hate and dehumanization of *another* people. Their marchers are a kind of psychological rape intended to demonstrate that even in their homes, minorities can be intimidated. If you think the neo-nazis are making a political statement you are being very naieve. This is about race, and if Neo-Nazis are allowed to go into black neighborhoods and do their thing, then someone should bus in black people who hate whites into America's richest white neighborhoods and allow the same thing to happen. But we all know that would never be allowed - so let's stop this b.s. and stop defending Neo-Nazis when you know the other way around would never be allowed!
Let 'em march. Let everyone know EXACTLY what they believe. Make it very clear. They're only made to look like fools by their own words. Do a better job of keeping order. There are all sorts of time/place restrictions on speech that are Constitutional. Use them. Unless you seek to become what you despise...you don't ban their right to speak whatever idiot thing comes out of their mouths. You don't toss the First Amendment because of the content of their speech.
Well-put, MadMax. I fully agree. I believe that's an essential part of the greatness of this country: tolerating the intolerant.
Malcolm X was saying defend yourself if necessary. I guess you can say that's inciting violence, but I find it ok in that case.
If you oppress an ideology, you empower it. You are showing your fear of that ideology seeing daylight, getting airtime. Allowing an ideology, any ideology equal, protected access to public space means it must compete on the free market of ideas. Apathy is a stronger response than disgust. The responsibility for incitement to violence rests upon he who throws the first stone.
It is best to allow hate speech to compete in the open market of ideology, where it can be compared to all other ideologies and win or lose in the individual hearts and minds of Americans accordingly. Allowing hate speech public access is a far more effectvie method of battling it than oppressing it. Let all Americans and the world see it exactly for what it is. Hatred and disgust is a sign of fear. Hatred and disgust for hate speech and it's speakers empowers them, because they know they are feared. It is fuel for the cause. Rest secure in your own knowledge of right and wrong; don't enforce the public expression or non-expression of others' ideas. I know in my own heart and mind that neo-nazis are wrong, and I trust that others will think the same if exposed to them. I am apathetic to their demonstrations. I hope they have lots of demonstrations in every city, with non-violent apathetic responses. Informing the country of the true face of hatred will only support it's demise.
I think it's very easy to say "LET THEM MARCH" when it's not in your community and not against you. To all those that support these neo-nazis being able to march, I truly hope that they come to your home and march and let you then decide if you feel the same way. And for those that are white, I hope it's some minority that have signs that say "The White Man's days is numbered" and "You get to heaven by killing a white man" for all your kids to see and they play in yards. Luckily, most of you will never experience it, so long as it's happening to other people in other communities, support free speech. I guarantee you that if these Neo-Nazis were not white and instead black, they would never be allowed to march through a white neighborhood. Maybe then there would be some opposition.
For one the neo-Nazis might think they represent whites but I doubt that a vast majority of whites would consider that the Neo-Nazi's speak for them. Their viewpoint is an extreme minority. As far as race goes there are many who make extremists statements regarding race. Kanye's West's statement about Bush was extreme and one that manner consider outrightly hateful. So should he not be allowed to speak out publicly too? As far as letting some angry blacks march down the street into River Oaks or some other rich white neighborhood I think they should be allowed to do that. If the local municipality doesn't that doesn't make it right that then Neo-Nazis shouldn't be allowed to march in Benson Hurst. Two wrongs don't make a right. Anyway you're just saying that we ban extremists speech if its about race? What about religion? Proselytizers of any religion are essentially saying that someone elses faith is wrong and that there is only one true faith. That's pretty inflamatory to me and everytime a Mormon missionary comes to my door that's what he's saying. Again you're opening a slippery slope because there are tons of issues that many people will find it offensive. We ban extreme racial statements today and next thing you know we ban extreme religious statements, extreme political statements and so on... Further just banning the speech doesn't do away with the issue. As others have pointed out it just festers underground. Finally as I mentioned earlier its really immaterial what the Neo-Nazis will do if they were in charge. This is about whether we allow free expression in a free society even if that expression is repugnant. Yes the Nazis wouldn't allow free expression but that's the difference between our society and the one that the Nazis would want.
