I am intolerant of intolerance and so can you

[Buckles]

To stand on a soapbox and preach for freedom of speech is easy: to recognize when it's being abused is a little more important. Hate mongering like this = verbal abuse, as previously mentioned, and abuse is illegal. Sure, a violent attack on the parade is illegal too, and rightly so, but the fact that this abominable organization is allowed to exist is just as wrong, if not more so.

Freedom of speech or not, the fact that these groups are allowed to exist is a greater attack on the core values of whatever nation they're in than a few rock-wielding protesters.

 

[Morm]

Freedom of speech or not, the fact that these groups are allowed to exist is a greater attack on the core values of whatever nation they're in than a few rock-wielding protesters.

and that is the exact mindset that leads to dictatorships and holocausts.

 

[Staraptor Call]

As long as a group's views don't cause harm to others, that group should be allowed to express its opinions no matter how unpopular they are. The question here, however, is whether the neo-nazis' expression of their beliefs causes harm to people. The neo-nazi march would instill fear in Jews and and other groups hated by nazis, and make the demonstrators potential targets, for, as it happened, rock-throwing protesters. The neo-nazi demonstration should have not been allowed, as it would likely cause harm -- to the neo-nazis themselves.

 

[Buckles]

and that is the exact mindset that leads to dictatorships and holocausts.

I'm sorry, but how could outlawing any organized group demonstration whose primary goal is to promote hatred of a certain race/religion/culture lead a country to dictatorship? You might lose a little population, as the hatemongers move elsewhere to practice their ideas, but good riddance.
I'm not saying leave at the government's discretion what constitutes a "harmful demonstration", I'm saying institute set guidelines (i.e. laws) like I mentioned above.

 

[Outlaw]

I'm sorry, but how could outlawing any organized group demonstration whose primary goal is to promote hatred of a certain race/religion/culture lead a country to dictatorship? You might lose a little population, as the hatemongers move elsewhere to practice their ideas, but good riddance.
I'm not saying leave at the government's discretion what constitutes a "harmful demonstration", I'm saying institute set guidelines (i.e. laws) like I mentioned above.

What you are suggesting is just the same as "Hey speech is free, till I don't agree with what you are saying."

 

[crynts]

It is illegal to deny that the Holocaust never happened in Germany. It is also illegal for the government and employers to discriminate others based on their race or gender here in the United States. Why should they get in trouble if we do it all the time without penalty? Discrimination is wrong, and that is exactly what the Aryan Gaurd is doing.

 

[DM]

"the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

They get around that with public decency laws. Not exactly a "criminal offense," but if walk up and down a busy sidewalk screaming "I FUCK IGUANAS" over and over, you're going to end up with a citation.

Discrimination is wrong, and that is exactly what the Aryan Gaurd is doing.

Wrong != illegal, unfortunately. Well, no, that's actually quite fortunate, we all cross the line into "wrong" once in a while.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

This has happened two years in row now. That date is recognized as both White Supremacist Day as well as Anti-Racism day. There are bound to be problems.
Of course, both sides would be too stubborn to change their date, so I predict the same thing next year. =\
While I do support freedom of speech, there really are some things that shouldn't be said. Frankly, nobody cares that you hate white people, black people, Jewish people, Islamic people, Deck Knight, or whoever.

name calling should do the trick.

What do you propose we call them? They're already labelled as "nazis".

 

[Gorgoroth]

I side with the White Supremacists. As much as I would like to stop gay and black pride parade's does not mean I actually go out and do it. Freedom of speech people.

 

[Buckles]

Discrimination is more than wrong, it is harmful and dangerous. Abuse is illegal, and verbal abuse is no less a form of abuse than any other. Call it emotional or psychological for a little more "oomph", but no doubt it can do way more damage than "sticks and stones". Why else is it illegal to issue death threats?

What you are suggesting is just the same as "Hey speech is free, till I don't agree with what you are saying."

As for this, really I think it's obviously not what I'm saying. Again, I'm not advocating leaving to anyone's discretion. If you could have read my whole post through your traditionalist glasses, you would have seen that I mentioned something about "promoting hatred of a certain race/religion/culture". Notice the lack of "hatred for government", "hatred of society" , other such vague ideas. I guess mentioning culture wasn't the best idea, since religion and race are the main issues and it is a little vague. Still the real idea here has nothing to do with what I (or anyone else) think(s) about what anyone's saying.

 

[Colyo]

You all seem to be missing the point that despite the message, the neo nazi's said theirs legally and the protestors said theirs illegally on several counts. Freedom of speech allows you to say ANYTHING you want, especially in a country where hates crimes/speech are not really an active issue. So technically, the portestors were hideously in violation of the law despite having the better message overall.

It appears as though Jrrrrr gets it :D

Freedom of speech does not cover direct verbal abuse, and threats are extremely illegal.

at least up here in the frigid north, if that isn't the case in the US, I lol at the priority of law passing down there.

 

[Morm]

I'm sorry, but how could outlawing any organized group demonstration whose primary goal is to promote hatred of a certain race/religion/culture lead a country to dictatorship? You might lose a little population, as the hatemongers move elsewhere to practice their ideas, but good riddance.
I'm not saying leave at the government's discretion what constitutes a "harmful demonstration", I'm saying institute set guidelines (i.e. laws) like I mentioned above.

Saying a group is harmful in ANY way is completely unfair to that group and undemocratic. For example, you can decide one day that jewish folk can't be trusted and are therefore harmful to your society and from there it's a short step to banning that lifestyle and punishing those that live it. The criteria is all relative and every group, no matter what they are saying, is protected by the democracy.

By my estimation of your view, I'd say you would move to disallow communist partys in national elections because they "pose a threat to the democracy".

Freedom of speech does not cover direct verbal abuse, and threats are extremely illegal.

I could have sworn that the neo nazi party was just marching in a parade and wasn't the aggressors throwing rocks and starting fights. There was no verbal abuse on the part of the neo nazi party, they were assaulted on principle alone and are therefore fully protected by our laws. It was a rather ingenious plan by them- they turned the 'good guys' (if you wanna call the nazi's the bad guys, which I know you and I are inclined to do) into the 'bad guys' and therefore looked like victims. True, their parade was designed specifically to troll an anti racism celebration, but they did it in a legal way so there is technically nothing wrong with that, unless you wanna outlaw trolling.

 

[FiveKRunner]

Saying a group is harmful in ANY way is completely unfair to that group and undemocratic. For example, you can decide one day that jewish folk can't be trusted and are therefore harmful to your society and from there it's a short step to banning that lifestyle and punishing those that live it. The criteria is all relative and every group, no matter what they are saying, is protected by the democracy.

In my opinion, when a group is calling for harm and/or the removal of freedoms of other groups, they lose their right to free speech.

For those who are interested, I wrote a pretty awesome essay on speech codes about a year ago: http://www.mediafire.com/?rxmdzwgzztm

I'd like to point out this excerpt:

Our Constitution was drafted at a time in history when the right to protest against the actions of the government was not tolerated. In order to guarantee a perfect democracy in which the people could stand up against their government without fear of persecution, the framers of the Constitution created the First Amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The literal interpretation of this amendment has brought supporters of hate speech to believe that it is indeed protected by the Constitution as a so-called “form of expression”. The true intent of the First Amendment, however, is “to protect dissent, to maximize public discourse, and to achieve the great flowering of debate and of ideas that we need for democracy to work.” (Matsuda 152) Hate speech does just the opposite of what the First Amendment intended. It brings any debate to a screeching halt, choking its goal of the right to object to current policies.

 

[Buckles]

How are Jewish people promoting hatred of others on such a grand scale? How are communists? The issue here is not what they are saying, or not saying, in this case, but the violent, intolerant ideas they are promoting. Call me crazy, but I don't think casting all neo-nazis as hatemongers is much of a stretch or an attack on their rights.

 

[umbarsc]

I'd like to know what the neo-nazis were actually saying. Neither of the articles directly quote them, so I don't know if what they were saying was actually abusive or just distasteful.

As for this, really I think it's obviously not what I'm saying. Again, I'm not advocating leaving to anyone's discretion. If you could have read my whole post through your traditionalist glasses, you would have seen that I mentioned something about "promoting hatred of a certain race/religion/culture". Notice the lack of "hatred for government", "hatred of society" , other such vague ideas. I guess mentioning culture wasn't the best idea, since religion and race are the main issues and it is a little vague. Still the real idea here has nothing to do with what I (or anyone else) think(s) about what anyone's saying.

"No, I am not opposed to it because I think it's bad, I'm opposed to it because it's racism, which is bad."

You're saying bad things about nazis and neo-nazis right now, do you consider that hate crime? If not, you're a hypocrite. You've also stereotyped on every neo-nazi, calling them all despicible hate-mongers when you can't possibly know that's true. Not all neo-nazis protest at rallies and scream at streetcorners that Jews are a worthless race that should be hunted, and if a person keeps his views to himself and quietly doesn't associate himself with Jews then he is hurting no one.

 

[Morm]

How are Jewish people promoting hatred of others on such a grand scale? How are communists? The issue here is not what they are saying, or not saying, in this case, but the violent, intolerant ideas they are promoting. Call me crazy, but I don't think casting all neo-nazis as hatemongers is much of a stretch or an attack on their rights.

It's all perception in that case. The Nazi's believed that Jewish people were harming their community, even if they were incorrect in thinking that. When a large portion of a community believes something, it becomes a value in that society and you can end up with people thinking nazi's are cool and arabs/commies/jews/whatever are bad. I'm not saying that all of nazi germany, or even most of it, was in support of it- but it sometimes takes just the right group in power to swing things wrong.

The take home message I'm trying to drill into your skull is that if you prevent someone from expressing their opinions in a legal way (ie not harmful, despite the groups values), you are removing their freedom of speech and that isn't democratic at all.

 

[Buckles]

First off, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am completely opposed to racism, discrimination and the hatred displayed by these people. Personally, they disgust me. Call me a nazi-nazi, or whatever, I don't care.


Now, I believe what I said was the hatemongers should be shut down. True, some share these attitudes and keep them to themselves, and who cares, can't stop them anyway. As for the flamboyant ones, what right do they have to restrict the freedoms of others (the victims of their discrimination)?

 

[Morm]

So you're saying that because you don't agree with their opinion they shouldn't be allowed to have it at all?

Welcome to the slippery slope, my friend. In this case, these guys were just trolling, they weren't doing anything to harm the rights of anyone. All I see here is people saying they have hateful opinions but not acting on those opinions in a way that is harmful in any way.

 

[paramylodon]

How do you differentiate pro-tolerance with "intolerance of those who are intolerant"?
That phrase is very misleading, in that it does do a good job of making those who are "intolerant of intolerance" look like hypocrites.
They are intolerant for very different reasons.

I might support freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I don't think some people are dumbasses.
EDIT:
What I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't support legal actions against such groups (due to slippery slope), although I would have a personal distaste for these individuals, making me "intolerant of intolerance", and thus, apparently, a hypocrite.

 

[Deck Knight]

The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech. Speech that offends no one does not need protection. No one tries to suppress speech that pleases them or amuses them. No one tries to suppress speech with which they agree.

What Neo Nazis and their ilk say is offensive. It is demonstrably backward, unfounded, and illogical. They are free to waste their time doing so up until the point their words turn into blows. You can hate them, despise them, and revile them. Or better, simply demonstrate through your own free speech that what they say is backward, unfounded, and illogical.

Neo Nazis are a minority for legitimate reasons. How quickly though do "minority rights" activists seek to silence them? Some minorities are more equal than others, usually the one you work for. Why do some people say you can't suppress a skin color or a sexual orientation and then turn around and demand the suppression of an idea? All those forms of suppression are equally wrongheaded.

One final note:

Hypocrisy is not a the worst crime a person can commit. Which is more evil: stealing, realizing you were wrong and then advocating against it or consistently stealing with no remorse.

The former is a hypocrite. The latter is a thief.

 

[Buckles]

So you're saying that because you don't agree with their opinion they shouldn't be allowed to have it at all?

No, I don't agree with Toronto Maple Leaf fans, but I can deal with them. I don't agree with a whole bunch of people(parents, teachers, TV personalities, all kinds of ideologists), but they don't pose the threat to people that these fellows do.

Now, what they did in this case was a brilliant move to abuse the law and I understand that the anti-racists were at fault here. The only problem is that when the law is abused like this, it needs to change. I guess I'm discussing how things should be, while you are more focused on how they are.

On that note, the Aryan Guard and the KKK and similar organizations should not be legal. Not because I feel they stretch the boundaries of the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or whatever laws that apply, but because they infringe on the freedoms of others. Think about it.
If I feel someone should die, an individual, and I voice this, that's a death threat. That's illegal. However, I can organize a parade about how I feel an entire race should be eradicated, and I'm untouchable?

On the side of the targets of this discrimination: Do they not feel afraid or threatened by these demonstrations? Is striking fear, causing a harmful feeling of danger not the reason death threats are illegal? I know there is a difference, but it really isn't much.

@ Deck Knight: By the time the words turn to blows, it is too late. The fact is, the words do as much harm as the blows ever could. Also, I agree, there is an air of hypocrite witch-hunt about this thread, especially the title.

 

[Colyo]

Think about it.
If I feel someone should die, an individual, and I voice this, that's a death threat. That's illegal. However, I can organize a parade about how I feel an entire race should be eradicated, and I'm untouchable?

Quoted for deeper impact. Seriously, this sums up anything I have/would say.

 

[umbarsc]

Do you know that they said that? I'm trying to reserve judgement because all I know is that this was a "White Pride" parade done by neo-nazis, which is distasteful but should be legal. If they were actually saying "Jews/minorities should be killed", then I would have a problem with it. If they say "Jews/minorities are bad", then that is more borderline but still should be protected by free speech.

 

[cim]

Did the speech actually call for people to go kill Jews? They're not actually quoted in the article; and it's very important to note whether or not they actually advocated violence.

ITT things I will never ever say again: I completely agree with Deck Knight's philosophy.

 

[Deck Knight]

On the side of the targets of this discrimination: Do they not feel afraid or threatened by these demonstrations? Is striking fear, causing a harmful feeling of danger not the reason death threats are illegal? I know there is a difference, but it really isn't much.

@ Deck Knight: By the time the words turn to blows, it is too late. The fact is, the words do as much harm as the blows ever could. Also, I agree, there is an air of hypocrite witch-hunt about this thread, especially the title.

I disagree.

Words never do as much harm as actions. Actions speak louder than words. Results are more important than intentions. A thousand pure intentions lie behind a million shattered bones.

Granted the Neo-Nazis and the KKK are inherently dangerous, violent, and hateful organizations. The problem is once you leap on them you establish a precedent. They engage in explicit death threats and overt hatred which establishes their well-deserved reputation. I reasoned argument can be made to silence them permanently and forever.

And then it starts to slide. With the overt groups crushed, a precedent for silencing the intimidating and violent has been set.

Who then, is next in line? Those who are covertly intimidating and violent. The problem being of course, how do you go about proving a covert activity? Well, either the government must investigate it or you must second-guess your neighbors. Overt groups are proud of their hatred and violence, they announce it often. You don't have to go fishing for them because they will tell you to your face.

Covert groups however can be merely those you find suspicious, or who look differently, or who believe differently. If you disband the KKK and the Neo-Nazis, are their former members any less racist or anti-Semitic? What if you hear on good word they've started infiltrating an opposing political party... why, now that party is harboring agents of hatred, and must conveniently be shut down.

There will always be hatemongers and the willfully ignorant in the world. You cannot eradicate hatred because hatred is a part of humanity. It would be like trying to stamp out kindness or fear or compassion. It cannot be done without inflicting a greater curse than the one theoretically destroyed.