NEWS: Neo-Nazi Demonstration Turns into Riot

its works for some time, but we deprogress once these leaders are assassinated. those that are willing to kill the side that isnt willing to kill will win everytime. they will kill the leaders of the non-violent side and regain control. once back in control of the public, its just a matter of slow deprogression. plain and simple

Originally posted by 27jdHow exactly would shouting "white power!" over and over again be inciting unlawful behavior?

Originally posted by 27jd
The difference is, words aren't against the law, violence is. Even if your words preach violence, it's not against the law until those words are acted upon.

I am pointing out you made a blantantly false statement, who said anything about what the neo-nazis said? You can't preach violence and make threats. I suggest you prove me wrong by making some bomb threats and death threats....dial 911.

As for my intial premise, the city should of never issued permits. The blame rests on the those officials who thought it was okay to piss gasoline on the fire.

www.skokiehistory.info...

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by shantyman
Did the Nazis make imflammatory remarks?

They can make as many ignorant, inflammatory remarks as they wish, as long as they don't directly threaten or call for violence against anybody, which during these public demonstrations they don't. They just preach their separatist views and their belief that their race is superior. That's why their permitted to demonstrate, because they are doing nothing illegal. I found an article that may help some here develop a more clear understanding of these morons....

Some Neo-Nazi groups espouse violence, and for this reason they are a source of concern to law enforcement. However, it is often surprisingly difficult to implicate Neo-Fascists in violence or illegality in any meaningful way. This is because these groups have adopted a proxy system whereby organizations which the Nazis intend to be financially, politically and socially successful are made to be extremely professional and respectable, whereas other, less important organizations and individuals are almost always the ones responsible for intimidations, violent acts and terror tactics. This makes it extremely difficult to track neo-Nazi criminal liabilities, because the culprits are often obscure and unimportant within the larger Nazi movement, and when groups or individuals are found guilty of crimes in these cases, they are almost always of little financial or political worth to the Neo-Nazi goals.

n the USA, the Constitutional guarantee for freedom of speech allows political organizations great latitude in expressing Nazi, racist or anti-Semitic ideology. Nazi groups in the United States can trace back to the 1920s, with the US branch of the National Socialist German Workers Party. This organization merged with Free Society of Teutonia to form the German-American Bund. The Bund and other groups achieved a limited and controversial popularity in the 1930s (at one point having a rally of over 20,000), but rapidly faded with the onset of WWII. The groups either disbanded or were dismantled by force during the war period.

After WWII, new organizations eventually formed which had varying degrees of adoption of Nazi principles, and again built ties with older organizations. As of the 21st century, there are some actual Neo-Nazi groups as well as a number of White supremacist, white separatist, Anti-Semitic, and Fascist groups that share some or large parts of their ideology with Nazism. It should be noted that the Ku Klux Klan is different from, and predates Nazism; it is not a Neo-nazi organization. The KKK has, however, often maintained ties to and sympathized with Nazi groups, including the original Bund during the 1930s.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I am pointing out you made a blantantly false statement, who said anything about what the neo-nazis said? You can't preach violence and make threats. I suggest you prove me wrong by making some bomb threats and death threats....dial 911.

I never said they could make direct threats, but they can preach violence if it's generalized. They can say they believe all blacks should be irradicated, but they can't say they plan to irradicate any. I'm surprised somebody as intelligent as you seem to be doesn't see the difference. And I'm not an idiot, so I don't see what point your ridiculous bomb threat comment brings to this discussion.

As for my intial premise, the city should of never issued permits. The blame rests on the those officials who thought it was okay to piss gasoline on the fire.

So then you believe the first amendment only applies if you agree with the speech? And do you believe the city should determine who has the right to peacefully assemble?

Originally posted by 27jd
I never said they could make direct threats, but they can preach violence if it's generalized. They can say they believe all blacks should be irradicated, but they can't say they plan to irradicate any. I'm surprised somebody as intelligent as you seem to be doesn't see the difference. And I'm not an idiot, so I don't see what point your ridiculous bomb threat comment brings to this discussion.

You made sweeping generalizations is what you did and they are false, so don't expect to be treated as intelligent until you show it. You can't incite a riot either, which means intentionally trying with words or conduct in order to get a crowd of people to act violently.

Originally posted by 27jd
So then you believe the first amendment only applies if you agree with the speech? And do you believe the city should determine who has the right to peacefully assemble?

I agree with the supreme court desicion that says the city can deny a permit, if it has a potential to due harm. Don't like it, then take the city to court. In this case, Toldeo dropped the ball or had ulterior motives in issueing a permit.

Freedom is speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want. Certain types of profanity, name calling, and obscene gestures are not constitutionally protected.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) holds that a state can lawfully punish someone for the use of insulting "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

Cohen v. California (1971) involves whether "fighting words" can be put on a sign or clothing, in this case the F-word on a jacket. The test is whether others can avert their eyes easily enough and do not experience a direct insult in terms of offensiveness.

Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974) defined "fighting words" as anything abusive and insulting, under face-to-face circumstances likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Police are held to a higher standard of being able to take more abusive language than the average person. There must be some conduct (spitting, moving one step closer, pointing a finger) along with speech that is expressed violently.
tently offensive.

www.aclu.org...

Originally posted by Regenmacher
You made sweeping generalizations is what you did and they are false, so don't expect to be treated as intelligent until you show it.

Sweeping generalizations? I merely stated the truth, regardless if you think it is false, you're entitled to your belief no matter how ridiculous. Same goes for neo-nazis. And I couldn't care less whether you "treat" me as intelligent or not, so you can put your thesaurus away. I'm not going to engage in one of the, "my vocabulary exceeds yours so I'm more intelligent" exchanges you seem to enjoy so much. They read like a legal disclaimer and are quite frankly very boring.

You can't incite a riot either, which means intentionally trying with words or conduct in order to get a crowd of people to act violently.

You have no idea what words were spoken, probably none considering the rally was called off because the riots started before the rally began. You would also probably have to be able to prove that their intention was to incite a riot, which would be impossible, so again what you say is pointless.

I agree with the supreme court desicion that says the city can deny a permit, if it has a potential to due harm.

Than there are alot more organizations that should also be denied permits, harm is a highly subjective thing, and there are alot of agendas that have potential to do harm.

Don't like it, then take the city to court. In this case, Toldeo dropped the ball or had ulterior motives in issueing a permit.

I don't care one way or the other. I'm not a neo-nazi and I think they're ignorant fools. I just recognize that in this country even fools have a right to spout nonsense, but people don't have a right to destroy people who have nothing to do with its' property just because they don't like the nonsense being spouted by twelve idiots. A counter rally or just plain ignoring them would have been far more damaging to their cause. And exactly what ulterior motives are you suggesting Toledo had? Are you saying they're in league with the neos? The mayor said they had a right to demonstrate, I guess he should have logged on to ATS and consulted you instead of whatever legal counsel he has, before he made any decisions.

Freedom is speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want. Certain types of profanity, name calling, and obscene gestures are not constitutionally protected.

So then you're saying there is no freedom of speech. Isn't it an oxymoron to say "freedom of speech does not mean you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want"? Shouldn't it instead be called restriction of speech? Also, who judges what gestures are obscene, or what types of profanity and name calling are acceptable and which ones aren't? The courts? Where will the line be drawn?

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) holds that a state can lawfully punish someone for the use of insulting "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

How many convictions have been sustained under that decision which was in regards to somebody telling a Jehovahs witness to stop making a "racket"?

Cohen v. California (1971) involves whether "fighting words" can be put on a sign or clothing, in this case the F-word on a jacket. The test is whether others can avert their eyes easily enough and do not experience a direct insult in terms of offensiveness.

Again, how many convictions? There are more than a few people in California with "fighting words" on their clothing.

Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974) defined "fighting words" as anything abusive and insulting, under face-to-face circumstances likely to provoke an immediate violent response. Police are held to a higher standard of being able to take more abusive language than the average person. There must be some conduct (spitting, moving one step closer, pointing a finger) along with speech that is expressed violently.
tently offensive.

The jails would be pretty full if they actually enforced these laws. Here in Arizona they can still hang you if you steal a horse too.

Those decisions you refer to belong here:
www.dumb.com...

[edit on 19-10-2005 by 27jd]

Originally posted by 27jd

Perhaps you also shouldn't have the right to post on public forums either.

The "nazi" police have to protect all of our rights, just as they would have to protect the rights of a peaceful black power demonstration by the New Black Panthers (bold for Odium

). Would you then hope that a mob of angry whites kicked the crap out of them and the cops protecting their rights? I doubt it.

Look i dont really care what you think, humanity shouldve dealt with nazism back in 1945 and BURRY IT !

The fact that these morons go and exercize their "rights" in a black community means just one thing to me: someone is stirring it up for all of you living in USA. They WANTED blacks to riot, they knew they would riot. WTF do you expect they would do? Stand there while skinheads give them the arm and zieg heils? Hell im white and i would be standing right there beside them. Its not about colour you know, its about what you belive in.

My grandfather was in Dachau and when i hear someone protecting "the poor little nazis who just want to exercise their right to free speech" it gets my blood boiling, becouse i can still remember the horror stories i was told when i was a kid. They are worshipping an ideology that killed millions of people for fecks sake man, what is wrong with you !!!

what i find mind boggling is that some posters here think its ok to march down the street with your hand streched out, with swastikas and all....what year is this, 1939 ?

As long as that's all they were doing, as retarded as they are, it is okay. Are you saying the first amendment only applies if you agree with the speech? Everybody's beliefs must be uniform and acceptable or they should be subject to violence? What year is this, 1939?

no sorry nazism is not acceptable by my standards, neither should it be acceptable by anyone elses standards. I think you really should rethink your position, perhaps catch up on some history....

and as for panthers, la rasa....all of them are a bunch of nazis, no matter what colour they are, they should exercize their freedom of speech at home, no even better, they should have no freedom of speech, becouse they have nothing smart or important to say, they are promoting HATE and ideology that breeds hate.

And you know, in 1939, nazis marched the streets of Germany with police protection and no one did a damn thing about it. Do you really need to see history repeat itself to realize whats happening ?

Obviously you do.

Originally posted by 27jd
Sweeping generalizations?

I merely stated the truth, regardless if you think it is false, you're entitled to your belief no matter how ridiculous. Same goes for neo-nazis.

Again, your sweeping generalization is false and has nothing to do with my belief or your idea of truth. It's simple logic, so get a clue: see 1st amendent

The difference is, words aren't against the law, violence is. Even if your words preach violence, it's not against the law until those words are acted upon.

What part of "you can't say anything" do you not comprehend or you trying to prove my unintelligent analogy again by remaining in denial despite logic and facts?

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

You have no idea what words were spoken, probably none considering the rally was called off because the riots started before the rally began. You would also probably have to be able to prove that their intention was to incite a riot, which would be impossible, so again what you say is pointless.

I have an idea, and you obviously have no clue, yet again.



NSM leader Bill White reappeared in full Nazi regalia, joined by Ohio NSM operative Mark Martin. Both began to address the crowd, taunting them with racial epithets.

"Hey! The Toledo Zoo called, and they want their monkeys back," shouted Martin, as the NSM members began making chimpanzee sounds. "Why don't you go cry to your daddy? Oh wait, you're a 'n-word'; you don't know who your daddy is!"

White suggested the protesters "ought to go back to cooking French fries at McDonalds, since that's all you can do," and led the Nazis in a series of chants.

"Hey Shaniqua, how many ‘baby's daddies' you got?" shouted Martin, creating an African-sounding name for effect. "How many welfare checks do you get every month?"

Than there are alot more organizations that should also be denied permits, harm is a highly subjective thing, and there are alot of agendas that have potential to do harm.

In this case it has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's based on a Supreme Court ruling and it's also been established the police knew there would be a riot. There have been a lot of organizations that have been denied permits, and here's a couple more clues:

NYC Denies Permit for Anti-war Protest, Stay Off Our Grass You Kooks

Screw Your Permits, Go to the Free Speech Monkey Cage

Are you saying they're in league with the neos? The mayor said they had a right to demonstrate, I guess he should have logged on to ATS and consulted you instead of whatever legal counsel he has, before he made any decisions.

Bill White the NSM leader writes,
THIS MEMO IS FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY.

I want to stress the importance of turning out in
Toledo October 15th. If you are equivocating or not
sure you can go, and you are an able bodied,
physically fit person, you need to be there, because
there is a high probablity of a fight, and we will
need every comrade we can get out there fighting with
us.

The Toledo police have been sharing intelligence with
us and providing information on the antifa and their
planned event. In fact, we will be starting our march
and parking at the police command and control center.

The police attitude appears to be that if the antifa
want to attack us, and we want to march knowing that,
then they will clean up the mess when we're done and
that's it. For those who enjoy such things, I
interpret that as a carte blanche to, if we are
attacked, beat these blacks and antifa kids senseless
under the protection of the law.

Toledo cops knew Nazi rally could become riot

Perhaps it's riot squad practice for a larger events yet to come, like martial law declared due to bird flu quarantines. Considering the city of Toledo spend $100,000 to provide security for two dozen skinheads, it doesn't make sense and I'm still formulating ulterior motives.

Shouldn't it instead be called restriction of speech? Also, who judges what gestures are obscene, or what types of profanity and name calling are acceptable and which ones aren't? The courts? Where will the line be drawn?

I suggest you do your own personal study in seeing what you can get away with and start a thread of your free speech escapades. I already tested my limits.

how many convictions?

Thousands upon thousands of convictions. There is no such thing as true freedom of speech in the US. There are free speech zones, hate crime laws, the patriot act, defamatory speech laws, content regulation laws, censorship laws, obscenity laws, sedition laws, disorderly conduct laws, breach of peace laws, sexual harassment laws, etc, etc, etc.

In more recent decisions, the Court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.
en.wikipedia.org...

Promoting racism is wrong in any form and the city's leaders should of taken responsibilty instead of passing the buck off on the masses. Any numbskull could see a riot coming, when you let aryan racists march into a depressed socio-economic neighborhood full of minorities that have harbored generations of anger and frustration.

One may ask if our Constitution's protection of civil liberties extend to protect a known terrorist organization whose history is replete with genocide, torture, and hate?

Who pays for all this stupidity? Every tax payer in Toledo. Next time make the Nazis pay for their own protection like when the Ku Klux Klan decided to march in Lima. Violence and is not acceptable, neither is sedition and hate speech that is intended to incite violence.

This gives a highly detailed account by an eyewitness journalist of what transpired at the Toledo riots:
historymike.blogspot.com...
www.toledofreepress.com...

Nazi homepage: America's Nazi Party: The National Socialist Movement

Next week on this Insane Planet: Saddam says his free speech rights were violated because Bush bombed his country, while al-Quada demands to have the legal right to demonstrate peacefully and recruit new members in the streets of America.



[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by nukunuku
Look i dont really care what you think, humanity shouldve dealt with nazism back in 1945 and BURRY IT !

There are many factions that have caused great harm to others based on race or religion, nazis weren't the only bastards who have attempted to wipe out a people, should Bosnian muslims have the right to say humanity should deal with orthodox Serbs and bury them? You're argument is purely emotional, and you are more than entitled to feel the contempt you do for nazis, I feel the same.

The fact that these morons go and exercize their "rights" in a black community means just one thing to me: someone is stirring it up for all of you living in USA. They WANTED blacks to riot, they knew they would riot. WTF do you expect they would do? Stand there while skinheads give them the arm and zieg heils? Hell im white and i would be standing right there beside them. Its not about colour you know, its about what you belive in.

If the twelve skinheads were giving them the arm and shouting slurs, the hundreds of blacks should have given them the rasied fists and shouted slurs right back. If the twelve nazis reacted in any way violently to that, the hundreds of blacks would have then been justified in responding in kind. It doesn't matter what you believe in, you can't physically attack somebody who believes differently, no matter how unsavory their beliefs are.

My grandfather was in Dachau and when i hear someone protecting "the poor little nazis who just want to exercise their right to free speech" it gets my blood boiling, becouse i can still remember the horror stories i was told when i was a kid. They are worshipping an ideology that killed millions of people for fecks sake man, what is wrong with you !!!

As long as we're discussing past wrongs, how many millions of people total do you think have been killed by Christians in mankinds history? Should Christians then be banned from having public congregations as well?

no sorry nazism is not acceptable by my standards, neither should it be acceptable by anyone elses standards. I think you really should rethink your position, perhaps catch up on some history....

I never said it was acceptable by my standards, my point is that my standards are not, and should not be applied to what others can and cannot say or believe. And I'm well aware of history, thanks. Maybe you should catch up on some history yourself, but take off your "nazis are the only evil in the world" goggles. You might find attrocities have been committed by other groups that enjoy wide acceptance to this day.

and as for panthers, la rasa....all of them are a bunch of nazis, no matter what colour they are, they should exercize their freedom of speech at home, no even better, they should have no freedom of speech, becouse they have nothing smart or important to say, they are promoting HATE and ideology that breeds hate.

Funny how when they demonstrate, it is acceptable and nobody riots. I'm glad you're at least fair and balanced in your desire to take away free speech. The great majority here are not. On Hannity and Colmes the other night, a New Black Panther member was a guest and proceeded to call Hannity a "devil" (I agree, but not because he's white), and stated their demand for seperation, the same agenda of the neo-nazis.

And you know, in 1939, nazis marched the streets of Germany with police protection and no one did a damn thing about it. Do you really need to see history repeat itself to realize whats happening ?

Obviously you do.

Do you honestly believe the very, very small minority that these ignorant rednecks represent, is currently poised to take over the U.S. government and rise to power? I can't even begin to understand what gives you that idea. There were twelve morons at that demonstration, history will not repeat itself in the form of neo-nazis. Neo-conservatives maybe, and their current aim here in the U.S. is exactly what you and Regenmacher seem to be advocating, the abolishment of our individual rights. So while your attention is stuck in the 1940's, history is set to repeat itself. Too bad you're blood's to busy boiling over twelve hillbillies.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Again, your sweeping generalization is false and has nothing to do with my belief or your idea of truth. It's simple logic, so get a clue: see 1st amendent

I'm pretty sure I have a clue, and since you're so derned intellectual, please elaborate how and what my "generalization" swept. It's amusing to see you try sooo hard at your creative writing, but you should make sure your words actually apply to the discussion.

What part of "you can't say anything" do you not comprehend or you trying to prove my unintelligent analogy again by remaining in denial despite logic and facts?

Now we can't say anything? I fully understand your point, but expressing ones twisted beliefs in public is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater. That incites panic, because people are afraid they will die. Are you suggesting like a few others here, that hundreds of gangbangers were in fear of their lives because twelve rednecks dressed like fools and shouted profanities? So afraid, they just had to destroy their neighborhood to escape the danger? Or should it just be assumed blacks act like animals and are unable to be angry without resorting to violence, like you, the police, and the neo-nazis have done?

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

So you are saying they were so afraid of twelve morons that they were in a state of violent panic. Very logical.

I have an idea, and you obviously have no clue, yet again.

So again, what was said by that moron that created panic amongst the blacks? After all the immature comments, did you leave out were he shouted their was a bomb planted where the blacks stood?

In this case it has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's based on a Supreme Court ruling and it's also been established the police knew there would be a riot. There have been a lot of organizations that have been denied permits, and here's a couple more clues:

It may have been assumed there would be a riot, but how could they know there would be one? Did they discuss it with the black folks first?

Perhaps it's riot squad practice for a larger events yet to come, like martial law declared due to bird flu quarantines. Considering the city of Toledo spend $100,000 to provide security for two dozen skinheads, it doesn't make sense and I'm still formulating ulterior motives.

Bird flu quarantines? Bird flu is a joke, another sensational flu pandemic threat that will never 'pan' out. Get it? Seriously though, every other week a new imminent declaration of martial law is foreseen. And again, there wasn't even two dozen. Perhaps you should refrain from telling others to get a clue, when you need one yourself.

I suggest you do your own personal study in seeing what you can get away with and start a thread of your free speech escapades. I already tested my limits.

And you're worried about the neo-nazis ideology? Maybe you should worry more about our current government than about silencing an inconsequential redneck gang.

Thousands upon thousands of convictions.

Examples and circumstances please.

There is no such thing as true freedom of speech in the US. There are free speech zones, hate crime laws, the patriot act, defamatory speech laws, content regulation laws, censorship laws, obscenity laws, sedition laws, disorderly conduct laws, breach of peace laws, sexual harassment laws, etc, etc, etc.

Most of those laws you speak of are unconstitutional, and again are very subjective. Take pornography for example, it can be argued it breaks almost every law you mentioned, do you believe it should be banned? Probably not, you've probably got some in another window right now.

In more recent decisions, the Court has held that fighting words must "reasonably incite the average person to retaliate" and risk "an immediate breach of the peace" or they could not be prohibited.
en.wikipedia.org...

What's average? Again, subjective. Some people retaliate violently if you look at them the wrong way, or if you're wearing a color they don't like. The "average" person in a crip neighborhood will retaliate if you're wearing a red shirt, so I guess it's your fault you wore that color, and so you're responsible for breaching the peace. I still think there are few, if any convictions.

Promoting racism is wrong in any form and the city's leaders should of taken responsibilty instead of passing the buck off on the masses. Any numbskull could see a riot coming, when you let aryan racists march into a depressed socio-economic neighborhood full of minorities that have harbored generations of anger and frustration.

It is wrong, but you or I have no right to tell somebody else what they can and cannot promote. If they aren't physically invading somebody's space, all we can do is either counter their statements equally, or simply ignore them. Once we attack somebody because of their words, we are in the wrong. And from your own source: Around 11 a.m. yesterday, about 15 Nazis had gathered next to the east side of Woodward High School, holding signs and chanting things like “white pride, not hate.” They carried homemade signs, such as, “White People Unite! Fight For Your Race.

One may ask if our Constitution's protection of civil liberties extend to protect a known terrorist organization whose history is replete with genocide, torture, and hate?

Many groups can fall under that definition, including Christians. You want our Constitution to be selective as to which organization whose history is replete with genocide, torture, and hate has the right to promote their agenda.

Who pays for all this stupidity? Every tax payer in Toledo. Next time make the Nazis pay for their own protection like when the Ku Klux Klan decided to march in Lima. Violence and is not acceptable, neither is sedition and hate speech that is intended to incite violence.

I thought according to you, there shouldn't be a next time because what they are saying is illegal. Shouldn't they just be arrested and convicted under one of the "fighting words" laws? Are you saying it's acceptable as long as they pay for security themselves? In that case we're in agreement, the taxpayers shouldn't pay to protect any special interest group.

Next week on this Insane Planet: Saddam says his free speech rights were violated because Bush bombed his country

What an utterly moronic remark.

while al-Quada demands to have the legal right to demonstrate peacefully and recruit new members in the streets of America.

As long as they are in this country legally and they demonstrate peacefully, in all fairness they should have that right. It would also make it a hell of a lot easier to track them, but since al Queda actually intends to do harm, they would never demonstrate and blow their cover by letting the government know who they are. Think the goverment doesn't track the neo-nazis?


I agree with John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle....


This is a very strong defense of free speech; Mill tells us that any doctrine should be allowed the light of day no matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else. And Mill does mean everyone:
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. (1978, 16)
Such liberty should exist with every subject matter, such that we have “absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (1978, 11). Mill claims that we need the fullest liberty of expression to push our arguments to their logical limit, not to the limit of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons.

2.3 Mill's Harm Principle and Hate Speech
Another difficult case is hate speech. Most European liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. A famous example of hate speech is the Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois. In fact, the intention was not to engage in political speech at all, but simply to march through a predominantly Jewish community dressed in storm trooper uniforms and wearing swastikas (although the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the wearing of swastikas as “symbolic political speech”). It is clear that most people, especially those who lived in Skokie, were outraged and offended by the march, but were they harmed? There was no plan to cause physical injury and the marchers did not intend to damage property.

The main argument against allowing the march, based on the harm principle, was that it would cause harm by inciting opponents of the march to riot. The problem with this claim is that it is the harm that could potentially be done to the people speaking that becomes the focal point and not the harm done to those who are the subject of the hate. To ban speech for this reason, i.e., for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. It is possible to suggest that persons on the wrong end of hate speech are psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that if we are to base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction. One response is to suggest that the harm principle can be defined in a less stringent manner than Mill's formulation. This is a complicated issue that I cannot delve into here. Suffice it to say that if we can, then more options might become available for prohibiting hate speech and violent pornography.

There are two basic responses to the harm principle as a means of limiting speech. One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups. It also undermines democratic citizenship and stirs up nationalism and jingoism, which results in harm to citizens of other countries. Even worse than political discourse, according to Kateb, is religious speech; he claims that a lot of religious speech is hateful, useless, dishonest, and ferments war, bigotry and fundamentalism. It also creates bad self-image and feelings of guilt that can haunt persons throughout their lives. Pornography or hate speech, he claims, causes nowhere near as much harm as political and religious speech. His conclusion is that the harm principle casts its net too far and we should allow almost unlimited speech.

This is a powerful argument, but there seem to be at least two problems with the analysis. The first is that the harm principle would actually allow religious and political speech for the same reasons that it allows pornography and hate speech, namely that it is not possible to demonstrate that such speech does cause direct harm to rights. I find it very doubtful that Mill would support using his arguments about harm to ban political and religious speech. The second problem for Kateb is that if we accept he is right that such speech does cause harm in the sense of violating rights, the correct response is surely to start limiting political and religious speech. If Kateb's argument is sound he has shown that harm is more extensive than we might have thought; he has not demonstrated that the harm principle is invalid.


plato.stanford.edu...













[edit on 19-10-2005 by 27jd]

So it should now be, "Freedom of Speech" as long as we agree with it?

What a fantastic idea, in fact I really like those view points people raise...or wait, it is only when they are "spreading" hate?

Define what hate is? Whose version? Hate that can cause harm to a group of people?

Well damn...a lot of views are now gone and can't be spoken.

Thank you for protecting us, because we can't make our own minds up and learn what is "right" and what is "wrong"...we need protecting.

Originally posted by Odium
Thank you for protecting us, because we can't make our own minds up and learn what is "right" and what is "wrong"...we need protecting.

Well so much for my showing how insane current said laws are, must of got lost in the translation.

Sad part is we are more likely to become more Orwellian, before we see any headway in libertarianism.

Someone say Gestapo? ATS: The National Clandestine Service (NCS)

[edit on 19-10-2005 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by 27jd

There are many factions that have caused great harm to others based on race or religion, nazis weren't the only bastards who have attempted to wipe out a people, should Bosnian muslims have the right to say humanity should deal with orthodox Serbs and bury them? You're argument is purely emotional, and you are more than entitled to feel the contempt you do for nazis, I feel the same.

Well, as a matter of fact, you government as well as NATO did deal with orthodox serbs "and bury them"....for like the next 50 years....and if nobody did, there wouldnt be a living bosnian muslim in Bosnia today.

Nazis sure arent the only hatemongers in the world, but they are one of the most prominent ones, and their ideology is one of the worst in the recent history. Why try to whitewash it?

If the twelve skinheads were giving them the arm and shouting slurs, the hundreds of blacks should have given them the rasied fists and shouted slurs right back. If the twelve nazis reacted in any way violently to that, the hundreds of blacks would have then been justified in responding in kind. It doesn't matter what you believe in, you can't physically attack somebody who believes differently, no matter how unsavory their beliefs are.

That would be the proper response yes, but it was not to be expected if you try to be a little realistic....and you cant attack somebody who beleives differently? Sure you can, your government is doing it every day. Besides, they werent expressing their "enlightened" views of the world, they were mocking and insulting black bypassers, WITH POLICE PROTECTION.

"Uuuuuu look, we can say whatever we want and you cant do anything about it...uuuuuu.....well rub it in....uuuuuu.......theres 12 of us and 500 of you.....uuuuuu....what are you going to do apes.....uuuuuu"

As long as we're discussing past wrongs, how many millions of people total do you think have been killed by Christians in mankinds history? Should Christians then be banned from having public congregations as well?

all fundamentalism is bad in my view, if they went to Iraq and start screaming "kill all muslims" while USA army protects them with tanks, would you call it democracy?

I never said it was acceptable by my standards, my point is that my standards are not, and should not be applied to what others can and cannot say or believe. And I'm well aware of history, thanks. Maybe you should catch up on some history yourself, but take off your "nazis are the only evil in the world" goggles. You might find attrocities have been committed by other groups that enjoy wide acceptance to this day.

i never said they are the only evil in the world youre making stuff up as you go, BUT THEYRE EVIL NEVERTHELESS, and you sure keep making lots of excuses for them....hmmmm....why is that?
I think there is a difference between "free speech" and "hate speech", to you i guess its more or less the same. I hardly consider this demonstrations an exercise in free speech, more a of a direct provocation, probably paid for by the same people that sponsor "la rasa" and the rest.

Funny how when they demonstrate, it is acceptable and nobody riots. I'm glad you're at least fair and balanced in your desire to take away free speech. The great majority here are not. On Hannity and Colmes the other night, a New Black Panther member was a guest and proceeded to call Hannity a "devil" (I agree, but not because he's white), and stated their demand for seperation, the same agenda of the neo-nazis.

My desire to take away free speech? kooookooooo
...fair and balanced? are you comparing me to Fox news? daaadaaa
So im saying its wrong for all of them to do what they do, while youre saying if panthers can do it its OK for the nazis....great logic man, clap clap....
And its not true nobody protests other hate groups....Alex Jones does for one, he protests everyone

Do you honestly believe the very, very small minority that these ignorant rednecks represent, is currently poised to take over the U.S. government and rise to power? I can't even begin to understand what gives you that idea. There were twelve morons at that demonstration, history will not repeat itself in the form of neo-nazis. Neo-conservatives maybe, and their current aim here in the U.S. is exactly what you and Regenmacher seem to be advocating, the abolishment of our individual rights. So while your attention is stuck in the 1940's, history is set to repeat itself. Too bad you're blood's to busy boiling over twelve hillbillies.

You know it only takes one hillbilly to do plenty of damage, just put him in the right place at the right time, and have police protect them. Now you have 100 more panther members becouse of those few hillbillies.
And im sorry to say you dont know that much history if you dont know the behind the curtains connections of your government to nazism.


Look, if you dont git it.....im saying this protest wasnt aimed at protecting the free speech...it was aimed at taking it away. Becouse they sure as hell knew there would be riots, in fact, they were counting on it. Now they can stop everyone from protesting, even the anti-government protestors.....oh wait, theyre already doing it anyway.....DOUBLE STANDARDS? HELL YEAH!
No nazis in America? Wanna place your bets?



[edit on 20-10-2005 by nukunuku]

As soon as one political party is banned or is pushed away from the protections every Party gets, you have lost democracy.

Democracy is the will of the people.
If you dislike the will of the people, support the banning of these parties and watch over time as more and more get removed until you are left with only one however some of us bothered to pay attention in history classes. The Government, use external groups like Nazi's [now] so they can forge our hate on to that group and remove any power that they have through legal means. Then the laws get interpreted and more and more will be banned...

God damn, I'm looking forward to the Police State.

Originally posted by Odium
As soon as one political party is banned or is pushed away from the protections every Party gets, you have lost democracy.

Democracy is the will of the people.
If you dislike the will of the people, support the banning of these parties and watch over time as more and more get removed until you are left with only one however some of us bothered to pay attention in history classes. The Government, use external groups like Nazi's [now] so they can forge our hate on to that group and remove any power that they have through legal means. Then the laws get interpreted and more and more will be banned...

God damn, I'm looking forward to the Police State.

Yes, i also belive they are nuthing but a tool.....they want to stir it up by letting all these haters on the streets....then they can take away all your rights, becouse you "cant behave yourself"

nukunuku, now you are getting the idea.

They are using the "Democratic Process" against each and every one of us, it is easier to start with a radical party first and move for them to be removed/outlawed.

Does anyone remember the "Reichstag Fire Decree" that was signed from their History class?

Well let me just remind you what they used it to do...yes, ban an extreme political party [Communist Party]...

They then followed this up with other acts, so that they could ban a few more until the other parties gave up. In the modern age this is a lot harder [internet, access to books, etc help us all out.] However they will just have to do it slower - it is already happening in the U.K. with the banning of "Islamic Extremist Parties" and this will in turn happen in other parts of Europe through the European Union...

Democracy begone from these Nation's!
I cast thee evil spirit out!

Originally posted by nukunuku
Well, as a matter of fact, you government as well as NATO did deal with orthodox serbs "and bury them"....for like the next 50 years....and if nobody did, there wouldnt be a living bosnian muslim in Bosnia today.

I don't understand what you're saying, the orthodox Serbs were not "buried". Unless moving here to Phoenix AZ equates to being buried, but it's not that bad here. We have over 10,000 Serbs here now, they even have their own newspaper. Almost all of the Serb girls are totally hot too.

Nazis sure arent the only hatemongers in the world, but they are one of the most prominent ones, and their ideology is one of the worst in the recent history. Why try to whitewash it?

I'm not trying to whitewash anything, but just because a racist gang stole a name and a symbol, it doesn't make them actual nazis. They had nothing to do with the actual holocaust, and as I've stated before there are members with jewish backgrounds. Should the Minnesota Vikings (football team) be held accountable for the attrocities commited by the berzerkers of long ago? Not that neo-nazis are as benign as a sports team, but they're not actual nazis. Hopefully you get my point.

That would be the proper response yes, but it was not to be expected if you try to be a little realistic....and you cant attack somebody who beleives differently? Sure you can, your government is doing it every day.

You really think my government is attacking based on beliefs? It's all about the 'O', and I don't mean overstock.com. I mean OIL. It's about money, not beliefs. And my crooked government is far worse than a few ignorant rednecks, or hundreds of gangbangers. They don't care what they can or can't do, and they have the world's most advanced military at their disposal. But be sure to focus your boiling blood on silencing twelve rednecks, that's exactly what they want us to do. And are you saying if we try to be a little realistic, we should not expect black folks to be civilized and not burn down their neighborhood because they felt insulted? Isn't that racist in and of itself?

Besides, they werent expressing their "enlightened" views of the world, they were mocking and insulting black bypassers, WITH POLICE PROTECTION.

Who should decide who's views are enlightened enough to be expressed? If somebody were mocking and insulting me, I would mock and insult them right back. I certainly wouldn't find a need to smash into the corner store and steal a bunch of stuff and set fire to it, or throw bricks at an ambulance.

"Uuuuuu look, we can say whatever we want and you cant do anything about it...uuuuuu.....well rub it in....uuuuuu.......theres 12 of us and 500 of you.....uuuuuu....what are you going to do apes.....uuuuuu"

If I were black and I saw some unintelligent albino redneck monkey with a flat top trying to imply that I was a monkey while he was acting like a monkey, I would probably pee my pants laughing. After I was able to pull myself together, I would start goose stepping and making inbreeding jokes right back at him.

all fundamentalism is bad in my view, if they went to Iraq and start screaming "kill all muslims" while USA army protects them with tanks, would you call it democracy?

They weren't screaming to kill anybody.

i never said they are the only evil in the world youre making stuff up as you go, BUT THEYRE EVIL NEVERTHELESS, and you sure keep making lots of excuses for them....hmmmm....why is that?

Oh no. You've figured me out. I'm really an undercover neo-nazi. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for these meddling kids!

I think there is a difference between "free speech" and "hate speech", to you i guess its more or less the same.

No, it's just very important that everybody be allowed to express their beliefs, no matter how retarded I may think they are.

I hardly consider this demonstrations an exercise in free speech, more a of a direct provocation, probably paid for by the same people that sponsor "la rasa" and the rest.

Now you're getting the picture. The government wants us to be at each others throats as an excuse to take away everybody's rights to demonstrate.

are you comparing me to Fox news?

daaadaaa

The spin stops here.

So im saying its wrong for all of them to do what they do, while youre saying if panthers can do it its OK for the nazis....great logic man, clap clap....

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Every idea deserves to see the light of day, so we can see the difference between a good idea and a bad one.

And its not true nobody protests other hate groups....Alex Jones does for one, he protests everyone

I enjoy reading Alex Jones's books, although I think he's just a wee bit paranoid.

You know it only takes one hillbilly to do plenty of damage, just put him in the right place at the right time, and have police protect them. Now you have 100 more panther members becouse of those few hillbillies.

Don't think so, black gang members murder other blacks regularly, not something the panthers would approve of. The gangbangers wanted an excuse to steal and cause trouble, the neo-nazis didn't even march and they still rioted.

And im sorry to say you dont know that much history if you dont know the behind the curtains connections of your government to nazism.

I know all about Bush's family history, so dont be sorry.

Look, if you dont git it.....im saying this protest wasnt aimed at protecting the free speech...it was aimed at taking it away. Becouse they sure as hell knew there would be riots, in fact, they were counting on it. Now they can stop everyone from protesting, even the anti-government protestors.....oh wait, theyre already doing it anyway.....DOUBLE STANDARDS? HELL YEAH!
No nazis in America? Wanna place your bets?

Exactly what I've been saying all along. If we allow them to prohibit the neo-nazis from demonstrating, it will open Pandora's Box and exactly what you say will happen, will happen. If you read my previous posts, you'll find that was my point the whole time. I asked where the line would be drawn, and for that I've been accused of being racist and you even hinted that I was a neo-nazi myself. But I accept your apology.

yeah sorry man if you took it that way, i was just wondering

...lost in translation....

I find it intresting that post that have to do with race on ATS get the most replies. As far as the neo-nazi "protesting" in Toledo, they knew exactly what they were doing. Toledo (Ohio for that matter) has a lot of underlying tension between black and white. Wasn't it a couple of years ago their was a racial riot their?

No problem. As long as we all realize we're on the same team, and we know who the real enemy is.