Judge won't stop sale of Nazi, KKK items at county fair

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710937-100.stm

A judge denied a request to block the sale of Nazi and Ku Klux Klan merchandise at a county fair.

Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry's said the motion filed by attorney Steve Jarrett did not follow rules of civil procedure.

Mr. Jarrett sought the injunction Tuesday, claiming the county got sales tax proceeds from the sale of the goods. He said the commissioners' names are printed in a booklet advertising the fair, linking them to the issue.

<snip>

"Clearfield is now the Nazi capital of central Pennsylvania, and they're not responsible," Mr. Jarrett, who is Jewish, said.

[manic expression]

1. That's terrible

we cannot tolerate intolerance. If we allow these scumbags to sell their filth, we have failed as a society. It is only right that we deny them any chance to flaunt their sick ideas.

[Dr Fate]

3. How about we ban the sale of Stalin-era Communist memorabilia?

I'm sure you agree that is okay too.

Please be consistent w/ post #1 in your reply.

[manic expression]

5. How's that going for you?

trying to be clever, I mean.

First, show me what group Communists want to exterminate. It's not that hard, simply point out which groups Communists want all killed.

Second, tell me what group (of identity, as in an ethnic or religious group) is explicitly hated and scorned by Communists.

Third, show me what prolongued campaigns of hatred and terror were carried out by any leftist organization on certain ethnic, religious or other such groups.

Just wondering aloud here, how many hate crimes have leftist organizations committed?

[Dr Fate]

8. I said Stalin Era.

Why does it have to be a "group" that is murdered in order for it to be hateful?

Dont defend one murderer in order to censor historical artifacts associated with another murderer.

[manic expression]

13. And?

The fact is that white supremacist groups have a long history of hatred against other groups, attacks on other groups and worse. Communist groups, on the other hand, don't. Furthermore, these groups will tell you that if they get any power, they will try to kill everyone with a birth defect (one example of many). You try to compare that with leftist ideas? You are simply wrong.

It's not about the era, it's more about the continuation of those very ideas. If these are genuinely historical and genuinely historical only, that is a whole different matter. However, if they are indeed intolerant, that should not be tolerated.

[Dr Fate]

19. I think artifacts from both murderers should be legal.

You seem to prefer one murderer over the other. Fair enough.

I'm not comparing left to right- I'm comparing dictatorships to dictatorships, hate to hate & death to death.

Last time I checked, the idea of a dictator who engages in mass murder is alive and well and could come back in full force at any time.

Even still, those artifacts should be legally available to whoever is interested.

[manic expression]

22. Again, you ignore my comments

the potential for murdering people because of who they are is alive and well in white supremacist groups. The potential for murdering people because of who they are is practically nonexistent in Communist groups. Comparing the two is ridiculous and anyone with a shred of objectivity can tell you that.

The OP: "Nazi and KKK items". Artifacts, as I've said, is another issue, yet you refuse to recognize my own words. However, if they do encourage hate, and that means we should act in an appropriate and justified manner.

[Dr Fate]

24. I did not say "communist groups" I said Stalin- a mass murderer.

He followed a pattern that has existed forever and will continue to exist.

I think it should all be legal, I'm not singling out one group in favor of another like you are.

[manic expression]

29. Look at the OP

it's about Nazi and KKK items. Nazis and the KKK are present and organized. Stalin, however, is not. Difference.

Intolerance should not (and cannot) be tolerated.

[Dr Fate]

33. I did. And I am saying Stalin era items should be legal too.

And the idea of mass mudering dictators DO exist. Open a newspaper.

You are stretching logic to defend or overlook what Stalin did in order to suppress one form of speech over another.

No one is saying to tolerate the people who buy & sell this crap- you dont have to invite them to your daughter's wedding.

Free speech is for EVERYONE in the U.S.- it's not just for Stalinists or non-racists.

[manic expression]

And?

You are comparing historical artifacts with your own concept of what these items are. The reality, however, is that these are Nazi and KKK items, not necessarily purely historical. Until it is established that these items are only historical and nothing more, you have no argument.

You still have not answered my questions. What Communist groups want to eliminate certain groups because of who they are? What long history of murder and intimidation have Communists been a part of? If you can't come up with an answer, there is no comparison with Nazi and KKK items. Period.

Tolerance should not be extended to those who are intolerant. That means not allowing their ideas to be spread.

[Dr Fate]

43. And- I am for free speech- you are for Communist style censorship.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[manic expression]

49. That's just laughable

You are for allowing hateful people the ability to operate and organize and spew their filth. You are for allowing the people who want to murder everyone with a birth defect the ability to spread. I, on the other hand, am for stopping intolerance and hatred and insanity.

[Dr Fate]

54. You would allow glorifying murderous Stalinists tactics just like I would.

The difference is I am a free speech absolutists while you use censorship of free speech as a tool to favor one side over the other.

Unless I missed something- if you are saying we should also ban Stalin or Pol Pot era artifacts, then I have to retract and admit you are at least being consistent.

[manic expression]

57. Just to tell you

you're making less and less sense.

So which groups in the US encourage a revolution which topples a post-revolutionary government, and then a subsequent takeover of that revolutionary party and a purge of that very group?

Seriously, name leftist hate groups, groups which want to eliminate certain groups of people because they are who they are. Stalin's murderous tactics are not being pursued today, nor are they anything but a case of a madman gaining control of a government, something which translates only to mass murder by the state.

Name a group which aligns with Stalin's ideas (or Pol Pot's) and one which wants to destroy groups of people because they are who they are. It's not that hard.

[Dr Fate]

91. Doesnt matter- some people want to ban your symbols, regardless.

Sure, the communists here in America distance themsleves from Stalin, but you cant gurantee to everyone that a leftist dictatorship cant happen ever again.

You are setting yourself up & opening the door to have your own symbols banned- splitting hairs over how the new Americanized version of Communism is kindler & gentler wont stop the censorship zealots you are opening the door for from holding a different view.

We aree to disagree- I'll continue to fight to protect your free speech even if you wont protect that of others.

[manic expression]

100. Why?

leftists aren't intolerant, leftists do not want to wipe out entire groups of people. Since leftists are not hateful and intolerant, you cannot seriously compare leftists of any stripe to neo-nazis and the like.

You can't guarantee anything, so what? Doesn't make leftists ideas and beliefs intolerant and the causes of genocide. The manipulation of a communist state led to mass murders, but the madman behind that is the cause, not any mindset. Therefore, your attempted comparison is invalid and wrong and more.

No, I am setting myself up for a society which does not tolerate sick ideas, I am setting myself up for a society which recognizes that racism and hatred and bigotry are unacceptable. All of this has nothing to do with banning leftist symbols or leftist ideas. What YOU want is to allow racist and bigoted groups to spread their filth, gain ground and potentially carry out their base aims. THAT helps no one, and no amounts of patting your own back will change that.

[Dr Fate]

102. It all depends who is on the "Censorship Board", doesnt it?.

If you can stack them with fellow communists or someone like me, then you are fine.

If conservatives get on the Censorship board and decide that Stalin pins are hateful- watch out.

I do want to allow Racist groups to speak- I admit it. When the worst of the worst can act like asses, it means moderates like me are 100% protected too.

I also want to be "allowed" by your proposed censorship board to combat them with better & louder arguments. Hopefully they would hear me out.

Bottom line- I am for free speech, you are not.

[scot]

103. Bless you Doc.

Who said "Daylight is the best disinfectant"? Let these poisonous groups display their hate out in the open and expose themselves to the just ridicule of their fellow man.

[manic expression]

106. That's exactly what happened in Germany

Want to know how that story ended?

[Dr Fate]

110. Nazis did not allow or tolerate opposition speech though.

Here most of us do- that is the difference.

[manic expression]

112. You really can't comprehend a point, can you?

That's what happened in Germany. "That" is the idea that Nazis should be allowed to organize and spread their ideas.

That's what happened in the Weimar Republic, Nazis were allowed to spread their hateful filth, took over and then started loading up the trains. That happened largely because few stood up against them.

Make sure you read that twice. Thanks.

[Dr Fate]

117. Except the Nazis were allowed to beat & intimidate their opponents...

...who spoke out.

We would NOT allow the Klan or Nazis to do that here in this day & age.

Instead the cops make us fight each other with more speech.

You cant leave that part out.

[manic expression]

123. Exactly

and who opposed them back? If people opposed them from the start, halted their spread and kept them from growing, it could've been stopped. Do you think they would've stopped if you walked up to them and tried to "speak them" into giving up? Come on, you know just as much as anyone else that real action to oppose them was needed then, as it is now. If people DID oppose them beyond using their breath, they could have stopped them. Instead, they got into power and the rest, as they say, is a travesty.

The thing you don't understand is that when nazis get organized and have room to operate, they WILL attack people for being who they are. That is a proven fact and anyone who knows about the subject can tell you that. They cannot be allowed to have any room to organize or grow, they must be halted.

[Dr Fate]

127. 1930's Germany aint America. We do things a little different over here.

Here, we would not allow hate groups to beat & intimidate people over opposition speech.

Rather, we would allow GOOD speech to combat the bad speech.

Many Germans didnt need to be told to hate Jews- many rural & middle class Germans already harbored the seeds of those thoughts.

[manic expression]

130. It's not so different

1930's Germany did allow the Nazis to organize and grow, which is what you seem to want.

"Here, we would not allow hate groups to beat & intimidate people over opposition speech.

Rather, we would allow GOOD speech to combat the bad speech."

:rofl:

What? There were plenty who spoke against the Nazis, but it didn't matter, because as I've said, insane people don't respond to reason. "Good speech" does nothing but waste oxygen after a certain point, thinking that it does is as naive as it is delusional.

Yes, the Nazis preyed on people's emotions. They gave them a scapegoat, a group to blame for everything, a group that can be made to seem responsible for so much misfortune.... Are you really saying that couldn't possibly be done here? It practically has already.

[High Plains]

158. Dude, the Nazis in America are a bunch of pathetic mouth-breathers

I worry more about people like you, who want to determine what can or cannot be said on the basis of ideological positions, than I do a handful of racist punks.

Reminds me of back in the mid-'90s when all my liberal friends were asking why wasn't I worried about the militias. I told 'em I was a hell of a lot more worried about the FBI.

If we end with fascism in this country, it won't be from the bottom but the top.

[manic expression]

162. And

they still hurt people. They still encourage killing anyone who has a birth defect. Hell, a bonehead in the eastern US killed a friend with a sledgehammer because he admitted that he was intruigued by non-straight porn (he got off by ratting on another friend who helped him). Two anti-fascists were killed in the Las Vegas desert by neo-nazis. There's a lot of stuff that happens from the bottom that you don't hear about. A gang in a nearby state terrorized the indian community for the better part of 25 years, scarcely any police response. The point is that they DO and WILL target, attack and hurt people just because they are who they are. If you aren't concerned by that, that's unfortunate.

Look, it's hard to do much about fascism on the top, but we can do a bit about the scum on the bottom. Is that not important?

[scot]

118. The wrong ideas won.

They sometimes do. But who is to decide which ideas are wrong? You? No, the demos decides.

[scot]

120. The demos isn't always right.

Democracy isn't perfect (look around), but its the best system we've got.

[manic expression]

126. I know what isn't right, however

and that is the aims Nazis have. We can all agree that they are wrong, and we should all agree that they must be stopped.

Is that unreasonable?

[manic expression]

125. The wrong ideas were allowed to grow and spread

that cannot happen. The wrong ideas were not opposed, the wrong ideas were let into power, the wrong ideas were put into wrong actions.

[Dr Fate]

147. You get it- thanks. n/t

n/t

[manic expression]

149. And you still don't

what you want enabled them and allowed them to load people onto trains. I hope you recognize that you allow this possiblity while I intend to crush it.

[Dr Fate]

152. I was not talking to you. And dont accuse me of siding with Nazis.

That is a dishonest argument.

I'm talking about Free speech in the United States- not what happened in Germany 60 years ago where there was no free speech enforced.

I realize it is a possibility- and I'll crush it with out crushing free speech along with it.

You have resorted to vaugely lumping me in with these racists bastards-I feel you can advocate censorship & communism without resorting to that.

[manic expression]

154. What I accused you of is

allowing them a chance to organize and do as they will, you may not side with them, but you DO let them grow and carry out their base aims and that DOES hurt people.

You're talking about tolerating insanity, something that is unreasonable in every way. What you are supporting is EXACTLY what happened in Germany before the Nazis took over. Speech did not stop them, "respecting their right of free speech" did not stop them, but opposing them at every turn could have stopped them.

No, you let it grow and gain momentum until you cannot crush it. You cannot stop insanity with rational words, it just does not work; you CAN stop it by opposing it fiercely and consistently.

I have NOT lumped you in with anyone, stop putting words in my mouth. I HAVE told you that your beliefs have led to an enabled and strong nazi movement in the past, and that can happen again; it is only right to ensure that it cannot have an inch.

[manic expression]

105. If your imaginary and straw-man board

wants to ban socialism, then they would have done so regardless of me or what I encourage. Don't be so naive as to think that a government which wants to limit the left will need MY help to do so. Don't be so ignorant as to think that the US government hasn't done so already.

Anyway, your "board" is simply an insipid example, since all it would need is a bill that condemns and bars in some way expressions of gross intolerance and bigoted hatred.

No, racist groups should not be able to flaunt their filth. When you let the worst of the worst act like they want to, you risk letting the country become the worst of the worst as well. Don't. Stop those who are both a mockery of society and a vehicle for wrongdoing.

You would be allowed to speak against bigotry all you like. Why the hell wouldn't you? Strawmen, strawmen, everywhere, but not an argument to see?

Bottom line, you allow racists and bigots to organize and spread their wrong ideas, I oppose them and want to stop them.

[Dr Fate]

109. Then who would do the censoring then? Perhaps a dictator?

I was assuming you were proposing an elected(?) board. I should have known you had not thought that part out.

What are you proposing?

Who gets to decide who uses what symbols for what purpose?

En elected Board? A community appointed board? Perhaps YOU?

Shall there be some type of petition or permit for non-racists who are promoting history or what?

The way we do it now is to see if it is political expression or not- if it it is, then we allow it.

[manic expression]

113. Strawman yet again

who would do the censoring? It wouldn't be an active thing. A bill or ordinance which restricts the expression of hatred and intolerance could work.

When did I suggest a change to the governmental system of any country? Stop putting words in my mouth, it doesn't help your nonexistent argument.

[Dr Fate]

115. A bill or ordiance that over-rides the 1st Amendment? Huh???

Since when does a bill trump the constitution?

Or are you saying we repeal or alter the 1st Amendment?

Until you clarify, it sounds like you really ARE suggesting a change to the governmental system of this country.

[manic expression]

119. As I've said before

and as you've ignored before, screaming fire in a theatre is illegal and rightfully so, this is little different. The spreading of ideas which are intrinsically intolerant, hateful and potentially deadly are not to be tolerated, as they present a real danger not only to society, not only to entire groups of people but to human beings.

And no, I've already clarified that I am not suggesting a change to the governmental structure. Until you find a quote of me saying this, what you said is slanderous.

[Dr Fate]

124. Show me where the 1st Amendment says you can ban political speech.

It says the EXACT opposite. Some political speech is indeed quite hateful- that is where we come in and speak up even LOUDER as to why it is wrong.

The Supreme Court gets to interpret it, not you- and they say that even hateful political speech is protected.

[manic expression]

131. Show me where the 1st amendment says you can ban dangerous speech

it's quite similar, yet you refuse to recognize constitutional precedent.

[Dr Fate]

136. The courts have not said that selling artifacts is like "yelling fire"

And they have not said that hate speech-unless one is inciting a riot- is akin to yelling fire either.

I fully recognize constitutional precedent- and the Court has not applied it to banning hate speech that is not coupled with a violent or intimidating act.

Under current Const. precedent, selling hateful or historical political symbols asscoicated with hate is okay.

[manic expression]

142. You continue to insist on strawmen

I have said that artifacts are not a problem.

I HAVE SAID THAT ARTIFACTS ARE NOT A PROBLEM. Hello? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Stop ignoring my words, it's rather rude.

The fact is that the spread of hateful ideas DOES lead to unacceptable consequences. That it has not been ruled as such by SCOTUS is of little consequence, the fact is that it could be done without violating the constitution.

[Dr Fate]

145. Oh- my bad- I thought the OP & thread was ABOUT selling artifacts.

Forgive me if I did not note where you apparently changed the subject.

Sorry- I was sticking to what the OP was about- selling physical objects-and an attempt to ban that act- that is not a strawman.

At this point- you are arguing what the Supreme Court "could" or "might" do-which basically allows you to insert hypotheticals & create facts. I wont go there with you.

Tell ya what- I'll let you have the last word as to what "could" or "might" happen if anti-free speech justices ever do what you hope.

My last word is that I am FOR free speech, while you oppose it.

[manic expression]

151. It is your bad

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06215/710937-100.stm

Find the word "artifact" in that article. Have fun.

Now that that's settled, let's move on. Selling things which do propagate hateful things is unacceptable, and anyone who says it is acceptable has no understanding of history, nor do they have any respect for decency and society and truth.

You've been making straw-man hypotheticals all night long. I've told you that SCOTUS COULD easily rule in such a way and not violate the constitution, and that is correct. You are trying to dodge the issue.

Your last word is that you want to let racists, bigots, nazis and other scum organize, grow and do as they will. You have failed society, you have failed the people who will be hurt, you have failed to fight for the truth.

Good thing you can pat yourself on the back for supporting "freedum" while you get loaded onto a train.

[Dr Fate]

156. "items", Artifacts, physical object, memoribila, its all the same.

I was indeed sticking to the subject. I apologize for my apparently confusing use of synonyms.

"COULD easily rule" is a Hypothetical.

If we stuck to what they DID rule, you would be wrong. You are.

I feel you are using dishonest tactics about me "wanting" and "letting" racists "do as they will." I stated that I will continue to oppose them w/o censorship.

I dont have to lie when I say you are opposed to free, legal hate speech- you admit it.

You have resorted to suggesting that I have nefarious positions on race- and I feel that is dishonest.

[manic expression]

161. Not really

"artifact" implies a purely historical value, "item" does not.

This isn't about what SCOTUS did, this is about what SCOTUS should do, and that is oppose hatred. So no, you're just trying to deflect the conversation, again.

You are allowing them to spread by taking the position you do. Rational words and arguments won't keep these lunatics from spreading their filth. Insanity doesn't respond to sane speech.

I admit that I am opposed to hate and intolerance at every turn. Anyone who cares about truth and decency does as well.

Just to tell you, telling a DUer that they are lying is against the rules (I know because I did the same thing). I hope your post doesn't get deleted. Anyway, you are putting words in my mouth, and it is the truth that you allow bigots and their sick ideas to spread. THAT is a true shame.

[Dr Fate]

165. No- you aim the rational arguments at the people listening to the debate.

And you allow the haters to trip themsleves up with lies- they always do.

Of course you dont throw pearls at swine.

And I assumed they were selling old memoribila as well as reproductions-I'll bet they were. I've seen it at fairs in the South before.

I'll edit the post for your benefit, since you dont want it deleted.

[manic expression]

167. And they aim their insanity

at whomever they wish. Further, they can spread their ill ideas to others, make them believe the unbelievable and so it spreads. Soon you may only have swine to throw your pearls at.

People do not exist in vacuums. The spreading of such insanity is an insult to anyone who cares about truth, not to mention a danger to that very society.

There isn't really anything to indicate that they were memorabilia besides your bet. However, if they were purely historical, I don't really have a problem, as I've stated.

Good, it shouldn't be deleted.

[Dr Fate]

171. And you think banning a stand at a fair will stop all that?

Selling racist "items" is the least of our worries. And if you are okay with selling artifacts, then you should be okay with selling reproductions or modern hate "items." Their use as symbols all depends on who buys them and who does what with them.

Unless you saying we should have a law that lets one person use an "item" for historical purposes, but bans another from using the same item for political purposes. If so, that is anti-free speech.

We "could" require parents to stop saying "The N word" in front of their kids- That would actaully do more tahn banning mercahndise- but it would also be unconstitutional.

You dont stop the insanity with censorship laws- you stop the insanity by demonstrating how they are wrong.

[manic expression]

173. Not if it is restricted to this instance

But overall, it will help.

Selling racist items futhers their ideas, and that is unacceptable. There is a line between a historical interest and an interest of involvement and action, and I trust you can see that.

I am saying that items used to intentionally and clearly propagate intolerance should not be tolerated. In other words, you can own "Mein Kampf", just don't expect to be able to yell phrases of it at people or argue that it is correct.

The "N word" isn't clear cut. Many use it as a show of kinship, the Beastie Boys use it because, well, I'm not sure. Not a perfect example IMO.

You can stop the insanity by putting obstacles in front of its spread. Demonstrating how they are wrong will do nothing to hinder it. Infections are not cured with nuanced arguments against germs.

[Dr Fate]

176. No- the state does not tell people what to think or say, politically.

So the state will "allow" some idiot own "Mein Kampf"- but the state wont "allow" him to argue that it is correct?

My friend, that is pure totalitarian in my eyes. "You can own it- but if you dare believe it, the government will prosecute you."

The state does NOT tell people what to think politcally- we learn that from talking to each other and debating-and we learn what NOT to think by arguing with the idiots and demonstrating how they are wrong or "insane."

[manic expression]

178. It doesn't tell people what to think

Society simply tells someone they don't want it being spread. Basically, an argument that "Mein Kampf" is correct is not understandable and only serves as an insult to humanity and a potential for wrongdoing.

I think totalitarian isn't a good label, I can give you "restrictive" or something, but I'll still argue that it is a reasonable and justified restriction.

The state, with the people's support, can understandably tell someone that certain beliefs are detrimental and unacceptable. We do that already, but merely telling someone something doesn't work in many cases.

[Dr Fate]

180. I agree the state can say certain ideas are detrimental and unacceptable.

But it is totalitarian to say the state can arrest someone for thinking or stating political ideas.

Acting on them, yes- that is the law. But laws against saying or discussing something (perhaps violent?)? That is what allowed the jailing of U.S. communists in the 1950's. It is also unconstitutional.

Law enforcement in the 50s connected "violent overthrow" with U.S. Communists- just like law enforcement today could easily harrass communists or other radicals under hate speech laws.

[manic expression]

183. People can

think it and other ways of expressing it, just not in a way that exposes it to other people. That's my stand and I know many feel differently.

The Communists in the 1950's didn't want to kill everyone with a birth defect. That's one of many differences between state intolerance and state intolerance of intolerance.

Yes, they did connect them, and they didn't even need to before that (Espionage and Sedition Acts). However, working against capitalism (to use an example) is not the same as working against the existence a certain group. They just aren't the same.

Although it is good to be wary of such measures and possible manipulation (as well as disagreeing with them in principle), the aim of stopping hatred is a good one, and one that shouldn't be cast aside IMO.

[JohMunich99]

203. Should people be able to sell Hezzbollah items at county fairs?

[Bacchus39]

196. Court just overthrew "speech codes" at Georgia Tech

the University tried to ban speech that was "intolerant" which of course is a subjective determination to be made by someone other than the speaker.

I can choose to formulate any opinion and argue any position I choose. That is what is great about a free society. I am glad I don't live in your world.

[One_Life_To_Give]

188. Like claiming shrub is not GOD?

The spreading of ideas which are intrinsically intolerant, hateful and potentially deadly are not to be tolerated,

That would be failure to recognize that shrub is the Lord High Emperor of the Universe?
Or support of Pro-Choice?
or posting on DU?

[Totallybushed]

52. What about

black hate groups? Jewish hate groups? Muslim hate groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas and ever C.A.I.R.?

Hate is not the exclusive property of one race, ethnic group, or religion. To think otherwise is bigotry and intolerance of the very rankest sort.

[manic expression]

55. What about them

First, any intolerance cannot be tolerated. Second, if you are seriously suggesting that hate groups of the minority possess the power and potential for goliath wrongdoing that hate groups of the majority possess, you are missing the point in a big way.

And I'm not sure what Hezbollah has to do with white supremacist groups in the US. Maybe there are Hezbollah demonstrations in the US, I've just never heard of one.

[Hope springs eternal]

64. now this post is what's wrong with liberalism

hate is hate is hate is hate is hate is hate is hate is hate.....

I'm sorry, but blacks have killed white people in riots (Crown Heights 1991), Jews bomb muslims (Lebanon anyone?), Muslims brought down the WTC ('nuff said). To say only whites can commit crimes against humanity is a dnagerous and hateful fallacy.

If your opinion is strictly a numbers game, keep in mind that some of the worst post WWII genocides in the world occur in non-white nations by non-white groups. Rawandi anyone?

[manic expression]

67. Did I excuse that?

No, I only recognized the FACT that a minority has considerably less of an ability to carry out hateful policies and actions. They can, but if you actually think hate of the minority is anywhere near as potent as hate of the majority, you need to think about it for a second.

"To say only whites can commit crimes against humanity is a dnagerous and hateful fallacy."

To put words in my mouth is just annoying. Stop. Moving on, I used the terms "minority" and "majority", which can be applied to any country, meaning any group can be a majority and any the minority. It has nothing to do with white/non-white, it has everything to do with majority/minority.

What you are saying is like claiming the Tutsis were a threat to Hutus.

[Hope springs eternal]

73. believe it?

"if you actually think hate of the minority is anywhere near as potent as hate of the majority, you need to think about it for a second."

It's a fact. Proestants are a minority in Ireland, but thier hate stretches no bounds. PETA? Spainish sepratists? Chechnya? These people are in the minority, but they continue to hate beyond all reason.

Sweet Jesus, the Chechyan rebels bombed a school for crying out loud. If any group did that in the US, I'd be calling for concentration camps. Hate is potent no matter who's doing it.

Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, but they commit 80% of the bombings. their's tons of other examples, but these are the most famous.

Oh.....just to mess you up....whites are a "minority" in South Africa. But just tell a Black South African they aren't "hateful"

[manic expression]

79. It's true

The potency of the Catholics in Ireland is more powerful, they could eliminate the Protestants far more easily than the other way around.

PETA? Huh? Explain this one.

Eta? I think you'd agree that what Franco did to the Basques (Guernica, for starters) is more potent than what Eta does. I could go on.

The point is that majorities have a far greater ability to carry out hatred for minorities than the other way around. Simple mathematics proves this.

And the minority in South Africa was very hateful and they had the means to control the minority. However, this is very much a situation that could be reversed if the blacks wanted to do so.

[Totallybushed]

185. I think the mark

of the truly intolerant is that he thinks his ideas are the only ones acceptable.

As long as it stays in the realm of ideas, any speech should be allowed. If it offends you, move on, turn off the TV, switch stations.

If there is an actual incitement to violence, that's different. Laws already exist to cover these situations.

Frankly, I find your suggestion more offensive, and dangerous to American democracy, than anything thee fringe groups could possibly say. Ideas, in the marketplace of ideas, should and will sink of their own weight if they are not good ideas.

[manic expression]

190. The mark of the intolerant

is that they are intolerant of other people. I merely think that intolerant ideas are unacceptable, which discludes anyone who values decency and truth.

No, if ideas are inherently hateful their spread should not be permitted. Such ideas can only lead to insanity, such ideas can only lead to the worst of consequences. It is a proven fact that if a group of neo-nazis are able to organize, they WILL attack people because of who they are. That should not be allowed at all.

You find my suggestions offensive since you refuse to recognize the fact that ideas that are intolerant and hateful are not to be tolerated, since they are insulting, plain wrong and potentially dangerous.

"Ideas, in the marketplace of ideas, should and will sink of their own weight if they are not good ideas."

Good thing that happened in Germany and Italy and Rwanda and...oh, no, it didn't.

[Bacchus39]

198. so you are intolerant too

as you cannot tolerate people you consider intolerant which begs the question, can you tolerate yourself?

[Bacchus39]

197. South Africa minority anyone??

they did quite a job oppressing the majority don't you agree?

[Totallybushed]

98. I don't know.

One, just one man, can inflict an awful lot of harm. Yes, these groups possess the power to inflict great harm on innocent people because they belong to a hated group.

Second, I don't know why you think I was trying to make a connection between Hezbollah and white hate groups? AS far as I know, there is none. Howevever, Hezbollah is a hate group, and a powerful one, with many friends and supporters here in the USA.

[manic expression]

108. Well

They can inflict harm, no one is disputing that. However, as far as establishing their hatred effectively, carrying out their wishes on a grand scale and truly wiping out another group, the majority always has far more potency. That's just a general rule backed up by math.

No, the fact is that Hezbollah is a group that is a direct effect of Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. The thing is that it was irrelevant to start with, and I will NOT start this discussion with you. Let's stay on topic, it's best for everyone.

[Totallybushed]

187. I'll stay off

Hezbollah. But what is this "effectiveness" of their hate that you are talking about? Why does it matter worth a damn? If a hater kills or injures one person, that is bad, and should be addressed by the law. Regardless of who did it, or what group they belong to.

anmything else is hypocrisy. And who decides, anyway. Right now progressives and leftists are in the minority, so I suggest that we would be the ones to suffer. AFter all, left speech offends a lot of people. And a lot of people have a completely different idea of right and wrong from the common leftist concepts. And a lot of these people are now federal judges.

Be careful what you wish for. Censorship is for Nazis, IMO. We don't need it.

[manic expression]

191. OK thanks

First, their hate is despicable in the first place. Second, hate groups will attack people for being who they are, they will terrorize communities if they get half of a chance. That is a facet of the nature of hatred which is proven by history.

Progressive and leftists are not hateful and intolerant. Neo-nazis and such filth are. There's a difference, no?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

32. Like it or not

Third, show me what prolongued campaigns of hatred and terror were carried out by any leftist organization on certain ethnic, religious or other such groups.

Communists/Scientific Socialist are Leftist organizations. So are you really asking what prolonged campaigns of hatred and terror were carried out by ANY leftist organization?

Where to begin, where to begin:
Stalin as previously mentioned:
Forced (Violent) Collectivization
Purges
Jews
Gypsies
"Deportations" to Siberia
Estimates vary but they range from 10MM-20MM deaths directly attributable to Stalin's Ploicies

Pol-Pot:
Ethnic Laotians
Vietnamese
Buddhist Monks
Estimates say his Communism killed 2MM (of an 8MM pop) people

Hatred and Mass Murder can come from ANY side of the political spectrum.

[Dr Fate]

36. And why does it have to be particular groups in order to be mass murder?

Thanks for the facts.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

38. Name one COMMUNIST...

...movement in any country that has not involved Collectivization or a violent "purge" once the Communists gained control.

Even much celebrated Castro's rise to power involved the summary execution of people he deemed agents of Batista's regime.

[Dr Fate]

44. Stalin murdered millions- even loyal POW vets who fought the Nazis.

What is with this "once the Communists gained control" exception to the rule?

Mass murder is mass murder.

You are not for free speech- you only seem to be for protecting speech that you agree with.

[manic expression]

53. Stalin murdered millions

and yet I see no Stalinist groups openly supporting genocide today. THAT is a difference you continue to ignore. Try understanding it.

[Dr Fate]

56. Tianemen (Sp?) Square.

I see- so they all changed, forever. No chance of history repeating?

I dont believe that for a second.

So China aint killing people over there? Suuuure. Tell it to the folks at Tiannamen Square. And guess why they were murdered- for practicing FREE SPEECH!!!!!

It makes sense how you have to defend the murderous history of Communists-who oppose free speech-so that you can insert the practice of opposing free speech here in the U.S. as well.

[manic expression]

58. You are simply naming atrocities without any relevance to the discussion

Show me how TS has anything to do with hate groups in the US. That's all I ask, some validity to your arguments.

"So China aint killing people over there? Suuuure. Tell it to the folks at Tiannamen Square. And guess why they were murdered- for practicing FREE SPEECH!!!!!"

Honestly, what the hell are you trying to say? You're making no sense at all. Opposing hate groups has WHAT to do with TS and the government in China? What was done in China and Russia is the product of state massacres and oppression, not the product of groups which spread blatant hate and intolerance. If you can't grasp the difference, that's unfortunate.

[Dr Fate]

61. ohhhh- I see- we cant ban Commie speech because the bad stuff...

...only happens in the countries that fund them everywhere else.

Okay.

Any way, I dont want to ban Commie speech, or nazi speech. You are the one who opens the door for that.

[manic expression]

66. This is a joke, right?

:rofl:

Your arguments are compromised completely.

No, "commie speech" is not toward the objective of eliminating any specific group. At all. Your insistence on fallacy changes nothing.

It seems that you've slammed the door shut on thinking and speaking rationally, at least for yourself.

[Dr Fate]

72. You refuse to acknowledge very recent history.

Why does speech have to be against eliminating one specific group in order for it to be offensive?

This is what you are missing- you seem to think that the anti-free speech crowd you are siding with is going to leave you alone just because Commies havent killed anyone recently or in the U.S.?

Stalinist memorabilia is indeed suggestive of the objective of mass-murder. It does not have to be a specific group to be mass murder- just murdered humans.

Allowing Stalinist memorablia suggests that his horrific, perverted tactics & mass murder is something interesting to ponder and study. I agree- same thing with the Nazis or the klan.

[manic expression]

80. I recognize it and understand it, you don't seem to

Why? Because speech which encourages genocide is a mockery of truth and justice and everything good in the world. Not only this, but it has the undeniable potential to gain ground, gain power and be applied in the worst of ways. That's why hate speech is beyond "offensive", it's just wrong.

No, I think that people who agree that hateful and intolerant ideas should not be tolerated are smart enough to know which groups are intolerant and hateful and which groups are not. Since you haven't provided me with any examples of leftist hatred and intolerance, it is safe to assume that "Commies" don't fall under that catagory.

Stalin is the cause of his mass-murder, not the propagation of any ideas. Furthermore, you still refuse to recognize that I have said that this isn't about purely historical items.

No, allowing Stalin era memorabilia is memorabilia, not the spread of ideas which would lead to genocide or institutionalized hatred. There's a difference, recognize it, understand it.

[Dr Fate]

93. That is the problem with your censorship- YOU want to be the decider.

"No, allowing Stalin era memorabilia is memorabilia, not the spread of ideas which would lead to genocide or institutionalized hatred."

That is merely your opinion- some type of censorship board you are advocating might not agree with your interepretation of what it means.

In fact, they could merely open a history book, look at the facts and come to the exact opposite conclusion- that he DOES represent ideas that did indeed lead to mass murder. Then they can convince folks it should be banned.

Dont join those kinds of people- be for robust free speech.

[manic expression]

101. No, it isn't an opinion, it's fact

Stalin era memorabilia is memorabilia. Your attempt to assert otherwise is as misled as it is dishonest.

"In fact, they could merely open a history book, look at the facts and come to the exact opposite conclusion- that he DOES represent ideas that did indeed lead to mass murder. Then they can convince folks it should be banned."

Nice try. If they opened a history book and looked at what Stalin did, that would have nothing to do with mere memorabilia. Therefore, they wouldn't have any rationalization for banning such memorabilia. Furthermore, you STILL have refused to name any groups which identify with Stalin and openly encourage genocide and intolerance.

I'm still waiting. I'll go ahead and guess that you won't actually address it, since you have a habit of ignoring my posts anyway. Have fun with that.

Moving on, I'm not going to tolerate intolerance, I'm going to oppose and do everything I can to stomp out bigotry, genocidal aims and intolerance at every turn. Anyone who respects and values truth should and must do the same.

[Dr Fate]

104. Tell it to the local censoprship board- I hope they believe you.

Many people who could get elected to such a non-American institution that you apparently want to exist could easily have a different out look. Stalin= Mass Murder would be an easy argument.

I dont have to name those groups- a censorship board could ban Stalinist or Nazi symbols if enough people can be convinced to agree- UNLESS a free-speech amendment stops that. Thank God it does.

Bottom line- I am for free speech, you are not. I'm happy with my position as I am sure you are.

[manic expression]

111. Tell it to your strawman?

Right. :rofl:

Anyway, Stalin = mass murder is correct. That is why it is ridiculous to say that pins of Stalin or that leftist groups are hateful, because Stalin is one man, while the thought that all those who have birth defects should be put to death are NOT. So yes, it is an easy argument, one that just proved you wrong.

Don't try to wiggle out of this one, name leftist groups which are hateful and intolerant. Until you do, you have no argument. Nice try, though.

Bottom line, you allow bigoted and intolerant ideas to potentially grow and be put to full effect, I refuse to let that happen without a fight. So you're happy with letting hatred fester and grow? I'm not.

[Dr Fate]

114. Replace the strawman with who you think should do the censoring.

Who do you propose whould decide what symbols can be used for what purposes?

You say it wont be a board. Okay. Then what will it be?

I'd glady replace the strawman with whatever apparatus it is you are proposing.

Tell us- who decides what symbols are used for what- the mayor? A benevolent dictator? You? Who?

As it is, if it is deemed "political" we allow it.

[manic expression]

128. That's exactly why it's a strawman

The "apparatus" I am proposing is simply any ordinance which restricts blatantly intolerant and hateful expressions. It's not that hard for reasonable people to understand, which is why you might be having some difficulty.

[Dr Fate]

132. But that would be in opposition to the 1st Amendment.

Unless you can show me the non-over ruled ruling that says different.

YOU dont get to say what falls within the 1st Amendment and what doesnt- no more than Chuck Heston gets to say what the 2nd Amendment says.

The Supreme Court, as well as the Founding Fathers agree that it is there to protect political speech- even the hateful kind.

You are just plain opposed to free speech- and unfortunatley you are not alone.

[manic expression]

134. No, it wouldn't

speech which puts people in danger is not allowed, and speech which encourages killing everyone with a birth defect is not so different.

The SCOTUS could easily rule what I suggest in a reasonable and constitutional manner. And spare me your self-righteous oration on the Founding Fathers and check out the Alien and Sedition Acts while you're at it.

So I'm just plain opposed to intolerance, you let it take hold. You would've been right at home in the Weimar Republic.

[Dr Fate]

137. "The SCOTUS could easily rule... " But they didnt. And they wont.

And Chuck Heston tells us "they could easily rule" that bazookas should be legal. But they didnt. And they wont.

Jefferson & Madison-the authors of the 1st Amendment- OPPOSED the Alien and Sedition Acts, BTW.

[manic expression]

140. They can, reasonably

it doesn't matter if they haven't.

But who did support the Alien and Sedition Acts? Quite a few people. Don't dodge reality.

[Dr Fate]

143. But they didnt, and they wont- not w/o lying about what it means.

And I'm not dodging reality- this is a discussion of the 1st Amendment- and it's authors opposed that act.

Just like they would oppose your proposed act of censorship.

[manic expression]

148. But they can

you are dodging the reality of the amendment and the precedent set. Such a measure could reasonably pass and not violate the constitution and you refuse to recognize or address that fact.

The authors of the Constitution didn't even believe in freedom of the press. Read "Novus Ordo Seclorum". Oh, and I know Jefferson opposed the act because it was a case of the Federalists screwing him over, that's basically it.

And anyone with a sense of decency would agree with me, but I guess that's asking too much for people who want nazis to organize and be able to hurt people.

[Dr Fate]

150. But they havent. And they wont. And all you can do is accuse me of racism.

Which is lie- while I correctly and factually accuse you of being opposed to hateful political speech being legal, which you admit.

We agree to disagree- but dont lump me in with racists just beaucse all you have left is playing pretend as to what SCOTUS "could" or "might" do.

[manic expression]

153. But they can

and this is not about what HAS happened, it is not about what WILL happen, this is about what SHOULD happen, and that is what you don't understand. What SHOULD happen is full opposition to bigots and their sick ideas.

What I accuse you of is allowing racism to gain ground. I will also accuse you of putting words in my mouth, because you just did.

No, I don't agree to disagree, because I don't agree with people who tolerate bigotry and allow it to grow. AT ALL.

[Dr Fate]

160. You are dishonest when you accuse me of tolerating bigotry.

Dishonesty should never be part of a spirited debate, even as a last resort.

I dont have to agree with or sign on to your anti-Free Speech beliefs in order to be opposed to bigotry.

And wanting to fight those bastards with MORE speech rather than engaging in censorship does not mean I "tolerate" racism what-so-ever-It just means we have a different view on how it should be handled.

[manic expression]

164. You are

You are tolerating bigotry, that much is basically your entire argument.

Speech does nothing with insanity, speech is a waste of oxygen on these braindead fascists. There is a point where more drastic action is necessary.

Anyway, we're repeating the same stuff, so if you want to continue, that's fine, but we've made our points.

[Dr Fate]

172. I disagree- and I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to that tactic.

Suggesting I tolerate racism, that is.

I'm saying that censorship leads us down a path where the majority or the goverenment controls everyone's actions & politcal thought. Some folks out there may dig that, but not me-surely not you either.

Racism is a blight, but I feel we can fight it with out throwing away our rights.

Censorship can be used to promote racism or shut down people who are against racism- just like the Nazis did before & after they gained full power. That is one of many reasons why I oppose it.

I can continue- I never tire of or run out of ways to defend free speech.

[manic expression]

175. To be honest,

I suggest that you do tolerate it, because restricting your opposition to speech is ultimately tolerating it, is it not? Seriously, are you saying you don't tolerate intolerance? Because you would be agreeing with me.

Just for clarification:

I think that intolerance should not be tolerated. What do you think?

OK, I think you bring up valid points, but this isn't an umbrella for unnecessary and unjustified censorship (ie it doesn't allow for more "censorship"). What it is is a clear-cut restriction on the propagation of hateful ideas, and that puts nothing except active bigots in that category. That's the way I see it.

Racism is very much a blight, but IMO it is throwing away the ability of that blight to grow and threaten people. That does not hurt anyone who respects the rights of others, that hurts those who can't bring themselves to even acknowledge them.

Although I understand why you oppose my suggestion, I simply think/know that it is detrimental to even allow its presence, much less give it room to expand. The Nazis gained power because more people didn't actively and strongly stop them. People spoke against them, but they simply didn't care or respond or anything else, and that is why more action needs to be taken to stop lunatics. The people who were speaking against them found themselves the first targets. Nazis and like scum need to be stopped and crushed, and with people like them, words don't work.

OK, I can keep going for the moment, too.

[Dr Fate]

179. Intolerance should not be tolerated-I say we agree on that.

I just dont agree that free speech= toleration of intolerance.

Free Speech has more layers than black & white-I dont see how allowing debate means that I tolerate it- it means that I have the opportunity to demonstrate how I do NOT tolerate it.

Like I said to ya above- I cant know I oppose it if I dont know it exists.

Hell- I even believe lies should be protected by free speech- I can learn more about a politician from what he lies about than I can from when he is truthful. I also expect his opponent to call him out on it.

I'm an absolutist when we are talking politcal speech that is not coupled with a violent physical act.

Perhaps you are right and that now we are both being civil, we should end it on a good note after all?- unless you have more to add?

[manic expression]

181. OK

I always thought that phrase was used by the European countries which have banned Nazi expressions. I get what you mean anyway.

You know you oppose it if you know you do, however. A society which stops intolerance doesn't need to forget about it. People know they oppose a lot of things even though no one visibly supports it.

Lies should be protected, but you do need to force people to tell the truth at some point (court rooms).

I understand the absolutist position, it's just that I think any room given to hate groups is far too much, among other things. I've said what I wanted to say.

[Dr Fate]

182. Good night- take care. n/t

n/t

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

92. Actually, true Communist Thinking

moves toward eliminating a private land/farm/factory owner.

So yes, there is an entire class of people that Communists want to eliminate by violence if necessary.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

85. Changing your argument now

You asked about ANY leftist organization.

You did not ask about how they related to hate groups in the US.

[manic expression]

135. Humor me

show me any leftist organization which states that it wants to eliminate a specific group of people. It's not that hard and no one has been able to do it yet.

Oh, and by the way, China's actions in Tibet are not a valid example, I want an ideology of a group which explicitly expresses true intolerance. Good luck.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

159. No examples are valid

in your point of view or "logic."

Just because you keep saying "does not apply, does not apply" does not mean your argument is sound or that no one has shown a valid example.

What does a SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE have to do with it? Why isn't it being a whole bunch of people enough? For someone defending an extremem point of view whose ultimate goal is a classless society, you are spending an awful lot of time trying to argue about a specific class of people.

Just because the goals aren't stated does not mean they are not there. The Nazis blamed the Jews for all their problems, but the true motive behind the "Jewish Solution" was not stated publicly for years. It was practiced with ruthless efficiency however.

The Stalinists/Maoists/Pol Potists/Whatever (yes all organizations based on leftist ideals) have IN PRACTICE eliminated large groups of people. Putting the undesireables/anti-revolutionaries/intellegentsia into the fields to starve does not absolve them of the responsibility of killing them and just because the TENS OF MILLIONS of people that these animals killed are not all Jews/Blacks/Purple or whatever, does not mean that their ideals ae any better than anyone else's

[manic expression]

192. No examples exist

I'm still looking forward to your examples.

Anyway, what a specific group of people has to do with it is that they are now targets, they are put in danger by such ideas. A "whole bunch of people"? That sounds like straight-up murder, and I don't need to point out that you can get in some considerable trouble for planning to kill a "whole bunch of people".

A classless society doesn't mean people are slaughtered and eliminated, it means equity. What does that have to do with genocidal or intolerant beliefs? Nothing. Next question.

Yes, the Jews were blamed for Germany's problems, and the idea was that they were "inferior" to the "pure" "Aryans". That, in itself, is intolerant, and if people actually stomped out those ideas before they took power, they could've been stopped. Instead, they were allowed to organize, operate, grow and eventually take hold.

OK, let us examine it: Stalin's murders, the result of a madman taking control and killing everyone he wanted to; no ideology was the cause of this (in fact, Communists were the main victims). The cultural revolution, basically the result of a mad man trying to regain full control over a country, the cause is often put as "too much government and too little popular participation"; no real ideology here except totalitarianism, nothing new.

In Pol Pot's killing spree, the Khmer Rouge thought that anyone who was even remotely linked to the last government; anyone who was a professional or intellectual; anyone who was ethnically Vietnamese, Cambodian Christian, Jewish, Islamic and part of the Buddhist monkhood; and anyone who wasn't deemed a really good farmer were targeted to be murdered; that, my friend, is quite intolerant, and if anyone wants to say that Vietnamese people should be slaughtered, it really doesn't matter what flag they say it under.

That's just my view.

[rinsd]

193. The WWP was supportive of Chinese efforts in TS

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

86. Just putting a point on it

Nazis gained control and murdered allot of people. Just saying that a Communist Dictatorship is not all warm and fuzzy like the poster would have us accept.

[manic expression]

51. Pogroms after a government is toppled

do not genocide make. Post-revolutionary violence is in no way remotely comparable to outright genocide. That you would compare the two is just pathetic. And you also ignore the fact that most revolutions bring about this phenomenon (see Sons of Liberty, what happened to Loyalists)

Oh, and look at Chile, Guatemala and other countries.

[Hope springs eternal]

75. Hmmm.....

"Post-revolutionary violence is in no way remotely comparable to outright genocide"

So where do you draw the line?

You can't play the numbers game, becuase Stalin was worse than hitler. Can't say it's poltical, because the Nazis eliminated many people due to political views, yet to you, that would be genocide. Can't say methods, becuase Pol Pot was king.


Face it, your saying Lefty killing is better than righty killing. Wrong wrong wrong.

[manic expression]

82. The line?

Too easy.

When a specific group is targeted for complete extermination, only because the group is what it is, that is wrong. When people are targeted because the government was toppled and there is unrest, that is not remotely the same.

What Stalin did wasn't post-revolutionary violence, what he did was purge the Communist party (a lion's share of the members) and kill tons of people. That's the product of a madman in power, not of the spread of sick intolerant ideas (the same goes for Pol Pot).

No, I am saying that genocide is not the same as a madman in power or as relatively small pogroms after a revolution (as in a few officials being shot or the like, which is what the poster originally specified).

To equate madmen with filthy ideas which potentially lead directly to horrible atrocities is just ridiculous and invalid and incorrect.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

87. Summary executions are small ppost revelutionary programs?

You are splitting hairs.

Extremism on one side of the spectrum or the other is WRONG.

Hitler killed for the ideals of the Nazi party and Stalin killed for the ideals of the Communist Party. Both extremes saw the individual as expendable for the ultimate success of their main cause.

Since Communists killed a varied amount of people vs just one group, that makes their attrocities less than?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

129. All sorts of groups

have been exterminated in the name of a Communist Utopia.

Property Owners
Western Educated Intellectuals
Jews
Gypsies
Anti-Revolutionary agents

And these are but a few.

To say otherwise is disingenuous or plain naive.

[scot]

107. Pol Pot.... Kim Il Sung......

[BrentWill4U]

121. Are you fucking kidding me...

Stalin was responsible for an estimated 10 million deaths (and yes, he did have a special thing for the Jews) and Mao 20 to 43 million deaths with his great leap forward. These guys were MONSTERS.

[toopers]

195. Actually, that is an easy one . . .

communists kill dissenters.

[madville]

206. Che

Some people could try to make the case that Che, the guy in your avatar, murdered and tortured people when he was in charge of Cuba's prison system after the revoluntion. I'm sure people in South Florida would love to ban Che shirts based on those accusations. It's a slippery slope.

[dwnforthecount]

6. i'll have to agree with Dr Fate

KKK and nazis both are hate groups but, unfortunately, to earn the rights we want as citizens we have to be willing to give those same rights to others. I want to go buy items that show my support of the Democratic party and support the Democratic Party any way I can, I have to be willing to let (cringe) the hate groups support their "party". As long as they act within the law, it would (again, unfortunately) be unconstitutional to deny them the right of supporting whatever political party they choose.


Also, nothing says this memorabilia is for hate-groups. Some of this memorabilia could be used for museums, which I whole-heartedly support. The KKK and the nazis NEED to be remembered by future generations for the atrocities they committed to ensure that such organizations will never rise again.

Yea, I'll probably catch grief over this. Oh well :eyes:

[manic expression]

9. I simply disagree

the thing is that when these groups, which are by definition hateful of others for who they are, are allowed to organize and express their sick ideas, not only is that an affront to everything right in the world, not only is that a mockery of society, not only is that harassment in itself, it also furthers their aims, aims that are unacceptable and the epitome of insanity. That cannot be allowed. It is surely reasonable and justified to halt the spread of intolerant filth.

It is constitutional to deny someone the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, it is only right to deny someone the right to spew pure hate in society.

Well, if this is simply a case of selling coins from Nazi-era Germany or the like, then that is a different matter. However, it is very possible that this merchandise encourages those very deranged mindsets, and if it does, they should not be allowed to be flaunted for the reasons mentioned.

I'm not trying to flame you, I just see it differently.

[Dr Fate]

12. But how do I know to oppose them if I dont know they exist?

??????????????

How do I know that my own beliefs are correct if I'm not allowed to see and compare them to the antithisis of those beliefs?

[manic expression]

16. Any society

which puts any small value on decency and tolerance will oppose such ideas. If they are opposed as I am saying they should be, that does not mean no one will know about them. On the contrary, this would entail making sure kids learn about racist beliefs and their applications in school and the like. Don't be so naive as to think that opposing it means wiping out the memory of it in any way.

Are you seriously suggesting that the belief in racial equality is not clearly correct? You know your non-hateful beliefs are correct by examining reality, not by permitting hateful beliefs to be spread.

[Dr Fate]

23. Sure- and I want to SEE what I'm supposed to be opposing.

Unless it doesnt exist on its own, that is.

And not just a justifibly biased abstract of it- I want to get right next to it and learn all I can.

Know thy enemy.

"Are you seriously suggesting that the belief in racial equality is not clearly correct?"

No- I'm saying I want to combat speech I despise with MORE Speech rather than telling people to shut up.


"You know your non-hateful beliefs are correct by examining reality, not by permitting hateful beliefs to be spread."

Bullshit- I cant FULLY examine reality if I create an environment where that reality is forced underground and lent a mystique.

[manic expression]

27. You can

That's not difficult. If hate groups are silenced, people will know the nature of them quite well. In a society which rids itself of such vile filth, the people will know that filth quite well. That's not an issue.

You underestimate insanity. Speech against hate is good, there can be no doubt, but only to a point. People who are blind with hatred will not listen to you, you will not change them, your speech will eventually be a waste of good oxygen. Furthermore, if you allow their ideas to spread, you may in fact allow more people to blind themselves to rational speech.

No, you are again incorrect. If you allow hatred to fester simply because you take an interest in it, you have failed in many ways. I don't know why you insist on claiming that the presence of Nazis is beneficial. Look at Germany, they have denied people the ability to spread those exact ideas, and when you go to Germany do you find that Nazis have a "mystique"? No, you don't.

[Dr Fate]

31. Yes, Nazis DO carry a mystique with certain rebellious youth in Germany.

You need to do your research.

That is exactly one of the things I was refering to. When you tell someone they cant have something, that is when they start being curious about it and romantacising it.

You wanna know when I learned the Klan was REAL joke? When I saw those fat-assed, dress wearing sissies marching down my street as an 11 year old.

[manic expression]

37. And thanks to Germany's policies

they will find a good amount of difficulty if they dare pursue those disgusting aims.

Also, I've known quite a few Germans, and the middle-aged are very guilty, the younger generations are wary but apathetic. You will rarely see a German flag in Germany (you might today but that's entirely due to the World Cup), and yet you are afraid of overt nationalism gaining ground in this environment? Your fear is misplaced. Anyway, the very few who find a mystique in it will scarcely be able to let that mystique reach the light of day. That is not unreasonable and it is effective.

It's good that you learned that they're a joke, and I don't doubt that many will share your opinion. The KKK has very little power, almost none when it comes to the white supremacist movement. However, you cannot deny that both their presence is an insult to truth as well as a potential for its spread.

[Dr Fate]

41. They have very little power- we agree. I think you empower them.

You empower them by lending them the mystique of rebellion and forbidden fruit.

I say let them march, sell crap, and act like idiots in general.

Racist Republicans in the South now know how to use "politically correct" language to fool moderates into voting for them. They used to openly use the "n-word" and other racists statements. It's strategies similar to yours that caused this back-fire.

I think you are incorrect to think that otherwise good people can spot racsim in the abstract.

I prefered it when I could tell without a doubt who the idiots were.

[manic expression]

45. No, I don't

The KKK is weak but that is not for a lack of ability to organize. The KKK is weak because they are seen as outdated. Neo-nazis, on the other hand, do have more momentum, although it is a FACT that opposition to them has splintered and weakened them considerably.

Look at what happened in Toledo, a bunch of Nazis tried to have a demonstration and the entire community threw them out of town. Guess what? They were defeated and were unable to flaunt their insanity, and occurances like THAT weaken Nazis, not allowing them to take the streets without opposition.

Racist politicians use PC language largely because the public would eat them alive if they didn't disguise their words. Politicians use openly homophobic language because the public doesn't, and that needs to be fought. Your strategies would allow them not only to use the language, but propagate it far and wide. That helps no one.

No, good people will know the filth they deny the ability to organize.

You'll know where they are, but you might find yourself knowing that they're gaining ground. That is not good.

[Dr Fate]

46. Meanwhile, I'll protect your extremist views AND the Nazis & the Klan..

In order that my own mainstream views are 100% safe, I'll adovocate that you should be ALLOWED to make you thin excuses for how Communist mass murderers are not like other mass murderers.

That is the difference between us.

[manic expression]

60. You'll do what?

I've made excuses for Communist muderers? Hardly. Do illustrate how.

Let me give you a simple equation:

Government oppression and murder (as in Stalin and the like) DO NOT EQUAL genocidal, hateful and intolerant views.

Government oppression and murder are the products of injustice and oppression, not explicit hatred. There is no similarity at all, there is no relevance of your arguments.

The difference is that I seem to be able to comprehend reality, while your ramblings show none whatsoever.

[Dr Fate]

65. "oppression and murder DO NOT EQUAL genocide, hate and intolerance"

Since when do they not go hand in hand?

Now you have to change the nature of modern dictatorships in order to defend your lop-sided postions on free speech.

I comprehend reality just fine- I know that commie dictators are no better than the Nazi ones- and I also defend both when it comes to free speech.

[manic expression]

68. Since awhile

When someone says "I want to kill group x", that is not the same as when someone says "I want to supress any opposition to my regime". Do try to make sense of this very easy equation.

Now you have to put words in my mouth to ignore the fact that you have no argument. Hateful ideas that people hold today are somewhat more potent than what Stalin did 60 years ago.

For example, what happened in Russia was the product of a madman in power, that's basically it. Explain to me how this is the same as spreading the same exact ideas which led to the mass murder of specific groups. It's not.

To reiterate, what you are saying is that the causes for Stalin's murders were Communism, which is simply not true, the cause for Stalin's murders was Stalin. However, the causes for the mass killings of many specific groups are the spreading of hatred and intolerance, and those causes can be observed today. They need to be stopped.

No, you defend the ability of hateful people to operate and organize and further their aims. You defend the potential for rampant intolerance. Give yourself a pat on the back, but it doesn't make it right.

[Dr Fate]

74. So we CAN ban Stalinist memorablia then? You agree he is a murderer.

And you also agree that we dont want to romanticise mass mureder by dictators too- right? We want to supress that dangerous idea so it never happens again, right?

I never painted all Communists with a broad brush- I'm talking about Stalin- and things like those Stalin Pins they sell at the Russian stores on Geary Street in San Francisco.

I'm trying to give you an opportunity to be consistent- you DO agree they should be banned too, right?

If not, then we all know that you are using censorship of free speech as a tool against certain beleifs rather than as a maxim.

[manic expression]

77. Once again, you ignore my points

I've said before, historical items are a different matter. But since when did you care about what I say?

We should oppose dangerous ideas, yes. A dangerous and insane man led to Stalin's murders, while dangerous and insane ideas led to the Holocaust, while dangerous and insane ideas led to the Rwandan massacres (I could go on). That's what we need to oppose, we can't allow dangerous ideas to be spread just like we can't allow dangerous men to gain power.

[Dr Fate]

78. So are you for banning the Stalin pins too, yes or no? n/t

n/t

[manic expression]

81. Address my post

And I am for halting the spread of intolerant ideas. Stalin pins do not fall under that catagory.

[Dr Fate]

89. See, that is why I am opposed to your brand of censorship.

Because people like you will try to tell me what symbol falls under what category.

To some, a Stalin Pin is a joke- to others, it symbolizes mass murder. Let the wearer & person who sees it decide.

Just like my sig image in this very post is interpreted to mean different things by different people. I suppose you would ban that too. Just not the Stalin Pin.

To many people, Stalin pins do indeed represent the spead of intolerant ideas- like mass murder-whether you agree with it or not- and they can use that as grounds to convince people to ban them. You are lining up with those people with the position you are taking.

I would prefer to let speech ring out and let the hearer decide what it represents or what it is being used for. Same with the Nazi stuff- perhaps someone who is NOT a Nazi may want to collect & display that stuff for historical purposes.

We will agree to disagree- I am for free speech, you are against it. Period.

[manic expression]

116. You are opposed to stopping bigots

that is terrible and potentially leads to the worst of consequences, and yet you seem happy with such a prospect.

A Stalin pin is not the product or symbol or item of a contemporary movement for the purging of the state. That is a fact. Furthermore, what would a Stalin pin represent as "mass murder"? The idea that most Communists should be killed after a revolution? The idea that troops should be shot for retreating? You have yet to specify any intolerant idea which could possibly be represented by this symbol.

Moreover, as I've said countless times before, historical items are not a problem. If a symbol is not used to propagate intolerant ideas, it would not fall under any such category.

Please, show me how a Stalin pin is intrinsically intolerant of a certain group. Go ahead, you have refused to give me any tangible support, and so your so-called argument is without support.

You are for the allowance of bigoted and intolerant ideas to spread, I am against that. Period. Oh, and no amount of delusional straw-men will change the fact that your argument is clearly shown to be fallacious.

[Dr Fate]

122. Yes- I am. With free speech, not with anti-1st Amendment censorship.

Stalinesque Mass murder does not have to be "intrinsically intolerant of a certain group" in order for it to have existed or in order for it to happen again- only you insist on that requirement.

Either way, I would allow Stalinists or Communist nostalgists to say whatever they want about him.

But, that because I'm for free speech, while you oppose it.

[manic expression]

133. No, you're for allowing bigots to gain ground

Stalinist mass murder was done by Stalin, not a specific set of ideas, and even if you convince yourself that it was, none of that is being propagated by a pin. So once again your arguments are false.

However, the fact is that you oppose stopping the insane, you allow them to spread their ill ideas. That can only be described as detrimental.

[Dr Fate]

139. I will stop them without censoring political speech.

I dont need to destroy or weaken my rights in order to fight those bastards.

Your pro-Stalin memoribilia arguments wont stop Congress, law enforcement or a judge from including that and other symbols in a Hate Speech statute that you propose. What else could they include? Satan Stars? My Sig image?

That is why I oppose your idea for a hate speech statute. I want you to be able to wear a Stalin pin, if you choose.

But, as I said, I am for free speech, while you oppose it.

[manic expression]

144. That's wishful thinking

and so nice of you to do that from behind your computer while Nazis are opposed and halted (see Toledo) by others. So good of you to volunteer yourself for the cause. :eyes:

No, it wouldn't include Stalin pins, because Stalin pins are not used to propagate hate and intolerance. Your blind insistence that they do changes absolutely nothing.

The reason you oppose stopping bigots is because you are delusional in your belief that words will stop the insane, you are blind in your belief that the intolerant should be tolerated. It makes you feel good about yourself, but at the end of the day, it allows the worst ideas to spread and hurt people, and you should know that such beliefs let that happen.

THAT is why I oppose bigots, THAT is why you allow them to do as they will.

[Dr Fate]

146. How do you know a hate-speech statute could not include Stalin imagery?

It would depeend on how courts & legislatures interpret it.

That's why I would not even open the door for the censors like you would.

And I would not allow them to do as they will- I've already assured you I will oppose them w/ more speech.

Safe behind a keyboard? Where the fuck are you typing from?

And I have fought the Klan in Georgia, thank you very much. By helping to organize a counter rally with the College Demcorats and an environmental group.

I've posted about it here before- search if you dont believe me.

My Last word:

MORE SPEECH- not censorship.

[manic expression]

157. Because of many reasons

1.) It does not explicitly encourage the extermination of a certain group.

2.) It is not associated with hatred for groups with people.

3.) No ideology was the cause for Stalin's actions, one man was the cause.

I could go on.

"Safe behind a keyboard? Where the fuck are you typing from?"

Guess. However, I do oppose boneheads and fascists quite a bit. It's good that you organized a rally, but there comes a point when more action is necessary and just.

Your last word is what gives them room, it doesn't stop them. They need to be stopped.

[Dr Fate]

163. Well, you trust right-leaning law enforcement & judges more than I do.

Because if we are going to make those guys bust rightist & Nazi "items," I doubt they will turn a blind eye to Communist & leftist "items" in turn.

I'll meet you half way- if you could convince them to craft a bill that specifically kept a Republican Judge or cop from associating Stalin with communism, or Satan stars with Human sacrifice, Lois Farakahn with "reverse hatered" etc. then you would be right. I dont think it can be done.

Seems like it would be too narrowly tailored & discriminatory at some point if you were not careful, but maybe it could be done.

I dunno- I just dont see Law Enforcement or folks with agendas playing by those rules you say will be in play.

I would rather leave it as is- political speech, even the bad stuff, is highly protected.

[manic expression]

166. They won't turn a blind eye

because Communism and leftism is not intrinsically hateful.

Communism is not intolerant, Satanism is not bigoted, I could go on.

No, it would only be put toward bigoted groups, which is not difficult at all. Your insistence on unrealistic facets to quite a simple concept doesn't further your argument.

Law Enforcement does whatever it wants. They don't need my help. They can shoot people and blame it on their wallet or spatula or candy bar (all actually happened). Again, don't be so naive as to think law enforcement needs any support for anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, intolerance should not be tolerated.

[Dr Fate]

168. You think cops & judges feel the same way about Communism as you?

Or Black Islam groups?

Especially when you give them the excuse of "hate speech" to hassle politcal groups?

"No, it would only be put toward bigoted groups, which is not difficult at all"

No- it is VERY difficult- because rightwing cops & judges have a different view of what a "bigoted group" is.


"Law Enforcement does whatever it wants"

I tend to agree- and that does little to convince me that cops & hack judges will only go after the speech YOU dont like.

That is why I oppose such an unconstitutuonal statute.

[manic expression]

170. I know that they don't

they alrady harass and hassle such groups, you're assuming this would somehow help them do what they've been doing for 100+ years. It wouldn't.

Communists are not bigoted. That's a fact. Nazis are bigoted. That's a fact.

If a judge wants to put this toward leftists, they would anyway, simply using existing legislation. Anti-animal torture activists are being charged with the most ridiculous crap as we speak.

You bring up a valid point, but the fact is that the left has been perpetually screwed and harassed, the establishment won't be further helped by what I want.

[Dr Fate]

174. Okay- and you have a good point too-

Except that I think your hate speech law could potentially give them even more leeway for prosecution- and less leeway for Liberal judges to toss it out.

The existing legislation does not cover hate speech, that I am aware of- but physical acts.

Your legislation could expand proscutions under a whole new rationale- why should we give them even more excuses?

But a somewhat valid position- it was refreshing for us to half-way agree with each other, even if on a small point.

[manic expression]

177. Perhaps

but I doubt a measure against pure hatred would implicate leftist groups. Let's take ANSWER for example. How could even the most dedicated prosecutor convince a jury that they believe in exterminating certain groups? I just don't see it.

When I referred to existing legislation, I meant the "anti-terror" laws which can be contrued any which way. People can be charged with the most ludicrous stuff for simply organizing or working against unethical companies.

Did you know that in Jackson, Mississippi, 3 people and a sign are required to have a permit?

I definitely think we agree on most topics, even on this one when you get down to it, only the specifics are in contention IMO.

[toopers]

208. Just out of interest . . .

how do you feel about burning the American Flag?

[Book Lover]

28. But you can just as easily prove that the Bible encourages deranged

mindsets as well. If nothing else, for history's sake, we cannot go down that road.

[manic expression]

30. That's not an invalid point

but until Christians openly encourage the mass murder of entire groups of people just for being who they are, that's not nearly the same thing.

While I do think that you bring up a good point, I don't think it's entirely similar.

[Book Lover]

35. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree

because I just can't agree with restricting the sale of these items to anyone. Perhaps it is because I work with historians on a daily basis.

Perhaps if WWII were 200 years ago, you would feel differently? Christianity has occasionally in its long and storied past certainly advocated the destruction of whole groups for being who they are (need I say the word "Crusades"?) Would you restrict the sale of a crusader's armor?

[manic expression]

40. Probably, nothing wrong with that

historically related items are a different issue IMO.

Anyway, if Nazis weren't around today I might feel a different way. However, the Christians who advocate the murder of homosexuals and other groups (Fred Phelps and his spawn come to mind) are no different from any Nazi skinhead, their views are just as disgusting. The difference is that most Christian churches aren't talking about killing everyone with a birth defect, as white supremacists are. If someone is hateful and intolerant, I oppose that regardless.

[Dr Fate]

11. Someday the government may classify Liberals as a hate group.

We "just hate Bush" and "we are hateful towards Christians" and all of that crap.

Especially if they know that classification would be a legal way to keep us from spreading our message.

Thanks for "getting it"- we have to protect the worst of the worst if we are to protect everyone else.

[manic expression]

18. Someday?

anyway, if the government wants to destroy liberals, they'll find a way regardless. Don't worry that. Your assertion that opposition to true hate groups would somehow enable governmental oppression of liberalism is as irrelevant as it is unfounded.

[Dr Fate]

26. Sure- and if you had told me about "free speech zones" 20 years ago...

...I would have thought you were a conspiracy nut.


It's not irrlevant at all- the whole point of censorship to get rid of ideas that the majority does not like.

That is why I protect unpopular ideas even harder than I fight for protecting mainstream ideas. Mainstream ideas dont need protecting- until they are not mainstream anymore, that is.

Healthy deabte, not censorship.

I say let the Klan, the Nazis & the Stalin apologists act like idiots in front of EVERYONE so we know who they are.

[manic expression]

34. Right

and what does that have to do with hateful ideas? The left has been harassed, targeted, hampered and worse by the government all the way back to Haymarket Square. That's been happening increasingly today. The suppression of the left is nothing new and a time-honored tradition.

What I am supporting has nothing to do with that. What I am supporting has everything to do with crushing hatred and intolerance, which is quite justified.

Let them do as they will? No, that's a big mistake. If you allow such ideas to be flaunted and spewn, you are giving them the ability to take hold, you are allowing them to be spread. That is unacceptable, for it only leads to the worst of possibilities and the worst of consequences.

"Let them act like idiots" is what the Weimar Republic said, too. Not long after that they gained support, not long after that they got power, not long after that they took over, not long after that the trains started rolling. Give them no ground, give them no room, it is a mockery of society and truth and a danger.

[Dr Fate]

39. The Weimar era Nazis took away free speech in incriments...

...and engaged in censorship frequently as the Nazis gained more & more power in their version of congress.

Stalin, Castro and the rest followed a similar course of crushing speech they disagreed with.

Let's not go down that road.

I didnt say let them do as they will- you can speak out against them and sell anti-Nazi stuff all you want.

The difference between you & me is I would ALLOW you to combat facist ideas with communist ideas- you are opening the door for those who would like to crush ROBUST discussion of either.

[manic expression]

47. The Weimar era Nazis were Nazis

period. They were allowed to organize and spread their ill ideas. That's what led to their gaining of power, and that's what led to their unspeakably terrible deeds. Stalin took over the revolution and murdered a lion's share of the Communist party along with countless others.

Castro has no dictatorial powers, nor does he crush speech he disagrees with (see Oswaldo Paya).

Let's not go down this road. Let me just say that if you make a point on Castro (or Stalin, unless it's relevant), I will likely ignore it.

No you didn't say that, but you did say they should be allowed to flaunt their ideas and aims, which is what they were able to do in Germany. As I've said, speaking against them is ultimately ineffective after a certain point.

I am slamming the door shut on hatred and intolerance. THAT, clearly, would be a great hurdle to fascism that it would never easily topple. Room to operate, however, would potentially open that very door.

[Dr Fate]

59. Sure- but it is a-okay if the anti-speech commies roll over us.

You are biased, and that is all there is too it.

At least I'm consistent- I still say that the Communists who make excuses for mass murder- so long as it does not occur "after they gained power"- have just as many rights as the Holocaust denial crazies.

[manic expression]

63. Are you even reading what I'm saying?

I doubt it. Opposing hateful filth has nothing to do with "commies".

Point out where I made an excuse for mass murder. I didn't. You are only trying to put words in my mouth because you don't have an argument. What I pointed out was that the driving forces behind mass murder are not the same as the driving forces behind pure genocide. That is a fact. If you can't figure that out, you should just stop participating in the conversation, because obviously it is far over your head.

[Dr Fate]

76. Ya made an excuse for him by arguing his stuff should be protected speech

Yet you think other imagery associated with hate & murder should be banned.

You have an inconsistent, biased position.

I'm for protecting ALL free speech- you are only for protecting extremist views that you identify with.

[manic expression]

84. More comical 'arguments'

"His stuff" is historical and/or novelties. What I am opposing is not.

His murder was a product of HIM. The spreading of intolerant ideas leads directly to murder, I oppose that.

Your position was just countered and shown to be wrong. Mine was not.

You're for protecting the ability for intolerant and hateful groups to organize and do as they will. I oppose that ability.

[Dr Fate]

90. Your argument only works if you ignore Stalin's history...

or if you ignore the fact that mass-murder & dictatorships are alive & well.

You are right- this is not about Stalin- it is about free speech- and you oppose it, while I am for protecting it.

You want to use censorship to fight Nazis, I want to use more speech to crush them. We agree to disagree.

[manic expression]

169. It works if you understand history

because Stalin was the driving force behind his murders, while intolerance itself was the driving force behind many genocides throughout history.

Right, this is about protecting society from ill influences, and you refuse to do that. You refuse to oppose what must be opposed, and that refusal is unfortunate.

Your speech will fall on deaf ears, mere words will simply make it easier for them after they get control. We agree to disagree? Fine, as long as you realize these people need to be stopped.

[JVS]

10. We cannot tolerate breaches of civil procedure in the legal system

Shit's gotta be done right, dammit.

[rinsd]

20. Sorry, I have issue with government determining what is okay to say

But by all means concerned citizens should feel free to make a non violent stink next to this booth.

[Totallybushed]

48. You don't think

that freedom of speech is a hollow shell if unpopular, even offensive, ideas are banned?

Suppose someone is offended by your ideas? You going' to shut up?

[manic expression]

69. I think

tolerance should not be extended to those who are intolerant.

My ideas do not include the killing of everyone with a birth defect. However, THEIR ideas do include that and other such sick things. That's the difference.

[Totallybushed]

96. then I think

your ideas are intolerant.

Freedom of speech has been a blessing over the years for progressives, and it's worth getting our feelings hurt a little.

Besides, the more the rat bastards expose themselves, the more people will turn away from their putrid ideas. For every follower they gain, they will make 100 enemies.

[Dr Fate]

2. Sounds like censorship to me.

WWII buffs & history buffs may want some of these items as much as hate groups.

Once again, we punish a practice based soley on what was on the person's mind.

[ThomCat]

4. I only partially agree.

Perhaps this stuff should be available for sale somewhere, but a faire is not the place for it. You won't find a lot of WWII and History buffs looking to buy stuff there. They'll have catalogs dedicated to them. The people shopping at a faire are locals looking for something cool to buy.

Anyone who thinks Nazi and KKK stuff is cool is a problem.

So I agree that this stuff should be available, but not there.

[Ladydawnelle]

7. The Sale of Hate?? um NO!

"Anyone who thinks Nazi and KKK stuff is cool is a problem."

I concur with Thomcat!

Hate should not be for sale on any level. But that's just my opinion. As I am not a hater or a supporter of hate groups. Wait I lie, I am a hater of haters! LOL

[Dr Fate]

14. My Jewish buddy collects Nazi-related materials.

He even has some authentic SS assesories. He can probably tell you Hitler's underwear size among just about anything elese related to WWII.

I've also seen Woopie Goldberg's collection of old racist memoribilia on TV. She has Black faced dolls eating watermelons and post cards of lynching.

Perhaps some folks are fascinated by this stuff b/c they dont want to forget that it could happen again.

Sorry- but speech & expression does not have to be "cool" to be legal.

[Book Lover]

21. I remember watching an "Antiques Roadshow" some time ago

A Black woman and her daughter were showing the daughter's collection of old decorated collectible spoons; IIRC, many if not all of the spoons depicted culturally racist imagery. The rationale was the same as Ms. Goldberg's: that these are historical artifacts and that one must learn and remember the lessons of history in order to meaningfully progress in understanding.

As for the OP, my opinion is that the judge did the right thing. I am not for restricting the sale of these nazi items.

[Tikki]

15. Hi Ladydawnelle....welcome to DU...

:) :bounce: :bounce: :hi: :hi: :)

Opinions!!....we love opinions. And ideas and thoughts and dreams and information and the truth...
Keep posting. We hear ya....


Tikki

[Ladydawnelle]

25. Hate is Hate and over thinking it is a waste of time!

I don't expect to see the sale of aborted babies in bottles either! But for some it's just the gore of it all I guess. Like how some will drive especially slow by some huge accident. Maybe it's a male - female difference? I'm not talking basic trivia Southern Pride stuff but the hard core hate teaching KKK mantra should NOT be allowed to be sold at a fair unless it's a KKK fair. (which I personally would NOT like to see either)

Thanks for the hello and welcome! I've been reading this place for years and only now felt the need to speak. Mostly I read the news. Being a VET and disabled, it's finally coming to a head this whole nasty thing with the Republicans and all their lies. I've just HAD IT!!

[happyslug]

17. What do you expect form a Democratic Judge???

Clearfield County may be rural and filled with a lot of Coalminers (OR ex-coal miners or children of Coal Miners) but it vote Democratic for they understand the value of the Bill of Rights, even when it hurts people such as the Plaintiff in this case.

For more about Clearfield County (official County Site):
http://www.clearfieldco.org/

An unofficial County Site:
http://www.clearfield-county.com/

On The Fair:
http://www.clearfieldcountyfair.com/

http://www.clearfieldco.org/Courts___Justice/Judges/judges.html

2003 election results (The Democratic Party won not only the Judgeship but the Board of Commissioners, the District Attorney and the Row Offices):
http://www.clearfieldco.org/SummaryReport.html

Please note In Pennsylvania Counties (Except Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties, Pittsburgh is the County Seat for Allegheny County) the Counties are run by a three man board elected at large. You get to vote for two of the three, thus the minority party is guarantee at least one of the seats, thus in Clearfield you have two Democrats and one Republican Commissioners.

[Plausible]

186. actually the deciding judge is a republican

I think the argument was should a government entity benefit by receiving taxes or fees, whatever from the sales.

Some of the KKK stuff shown on TV were things like KKK member badges.

[illumn8d]

42. Good

Censorship is not going to win anything here.

[demosincebirth]

50. Why should they be denied the right to sell their garbage?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. What's the position of the Fair organizers?

It's their decision after all.

[MrSlayer]

70. Nor should he have.

I believe free speech covers this. You have the right to be a racist asshole if you want.

[Throd]

71. They should have the right to peddle their crap

They don't have the right to make me purcheas it.

[outofbounds]

83. You can't sell Hate.

You teach it, you acquire it, but you cant sell it. Being tolerant means tolerating everyone as well as their views. Accepting them is an individual choice. hate is a very overused word. Hate is equal to what Hezballah is doing to Israel. Trying to deny an group the right to live. The KKK has outlived its cause. It is an ultra ultra minority that no one with any sense takes with a grain of salt. If a group of protesters organize to oppose the KKK at this function they will give credibility to this asinine group and they will sell more trash. Now if you have 2-5 white people with info on the leaders going to jail and losing popularity with everyone after the three social workers were killed in Alabama they wont sell a thing. And look like the idiots they are when they raise hell at peaceful fact promoting people.

[genieroze]

88. I think it's ok just as long as it has historical value.

My father sold a German Mauser and a pin he took off a dead soldier during WWII. What's KKK merchandise, white sheets? New stuff likes pics of Hitler are in bad taste.

[Dr Fate]

95. I'm not sure what they are selling- But Whoopie Goldberg collects...

...racist memorabilia.

She has an entire room full of bizzare "Pickaninny" dolls, black face posters & ads, confederate nostalgia, Lynching post-cards, etc.

She calls it the "Hall of Shame"

What some of the anti-free speech zealots on this thread dont get it is that different people can use different symbols in all kinds of ways.

[w4rma]

94. Good. It's history and people shouldn't forget what happened. (nt)

[Gully Foyle]

97. Yep

I'm often baffled by the supposedly liberal attitudes found at some sites.
I just saw Clerks 2 and wonder if people would be bitching about the take back "porch monkey" stuff? Or the interspecies intercourse?
For that matter Rescue Me or The Shield.
Free speech is just that. If it isn't free for EVERYONE it isn't free for ANYONE.
One of my favorite posters is Hitler with the line When I come back no more Mister nice guy,
Damned funny and I would sell them.

[OregonDem]

99. Nazi era stuff can remind us and future generations of

of the horror that was inflicted upon the world as a result of policies that openly advocated hatred, intolerance and violence. These hateful relics will stand as a testament of the failure of such society, so that hopefully history will not in fact repeat itself. The fact that Nazis embraced censorship is reason enough to reject it. We must use our freedom of speech to speak out against intolerance and bigotry and continue to fight the fascists of today and not use the tools they would use to suppress our speech if they were given the chance.

[BrightKnight]

138. Criticizing Chimpy and the rest of the buffoons in the Primate House

Criticizing Chimpy and the rest of buffoons in the the primate house require a special permit and a free speech zone.

[Dr Fate]

141. DING DING DING! You win a prize!!!

Thanks for thinking like an American- we need more of ya!!!

[HuffleClaw]

155. pretty frivolous lawsuit imo

its like 'offensive' books, if ya don't like 'em, don't buy 'em.

[bleedingheart]

184. I wonder how much time ole Lynn Swann will spend at the fair?

I wonder if he will peruse the Nazi booth and ask for their vote?

[bobaloo2]

189. Either you do or your don't

Where I live the constitution says this,

"No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.”
— Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 8

It's pretty clear, you have the right to discuss whatever the hell you want. If you want to sound like an idiot, that's your right. If you libel someone, they have the right to go after you. This is a County Fair, held on public property. If the booths are open to the public to be rented then you have to let ANY group rent them that wants them.

I simply can't believe the postings that want to define what speech is appropriate. Sorry, you either believe in the Constitution or you don't. Setting up censorship boards and having "political officers" to make sure the groupthink is proper is pretty terrify to see on a Democratic board. Democrats are supposed to be about freedom, not opression.

Sorry, can't remember the source of the quote, but it's along the lines of "If you don't support the freedom of speech for people you hate, you don't support freedom of speech at all."

[Endangered Specie]

194. I agree with the ruling...

much as I hate people like the KKK... this is supposed to be a free country and they have the right to sell their shit (by the same coin, I wouldnt have any problem with someone selling "lets hang KKK members" T-shirts either ;)). However if they become overtly disruptive/threatening, they should be thrown out. People need to learn to exersize their right to leave/not approach the table.

[ImNotBuying]

199. Here is my take on it.

If they just let it be, in cases like this it'll take care of itself. In most areas nobody is going to buy the junk, the "vendor" doesn't make a dime, and after all is said and done the "vendor" is in the hole, doesn't come back next year, end of story. In my opinion these lawsuits do nothing more than provide free advertising which brings people out from under rocks that wouldn't have thought twice about going to these events. Now the place will be crawling with folks who'll be making a point to show up and buy the stuff. Like I said, just my opinion and I'm sure a lot of you will disagree, but I think it does more harm than good sometimes. Next thing you'll have the good god fearing folks suing to ban vendors who sell towels with pot leaves printed on them (who hasn't seen these at fairs?). It's a double edged sword.

[MGD]

200. Liberty and freedom aren't always pretty.

So long as no one is harmed by the sale of these items, no government entity should be authorized to forbid their sale. It's a slippery slope that leads to increased fascism in American.

[Megahurtz]

201. No Censorship

and I'm all for free speech. Censorship makes for the stupifying of America.

If people are offended by items on sale then they can look away. As other above posters have revealed, not everyone who would buy such items is buying them out of hate. Selling such objects also doesn't promote hate, it's all in the mind of the person viewing it.

If they pass laws like this it will get out of control.
Who will judge what is right, and what is wrong?

I don't want to live in a society like that, no thanks!

[bvar22]

204. Agree.

Intolerance should be EXPOSED, not supressed where it will fester.

Let the NAZIS sell their trinkets.
Educate your children.

[slackmaster]

202. Not this crap again

:popcorn:

[Realityhack]

205. What on earth is the problem here...

The article seems to be down now but from this:
"Clearfield County Judge Paul E. Cherry's said the motion filed by attorney Steve Jarrett did not follow rules of civil procedure."

It sounds like the judge may have denied this patition on procedural grouns.

I happen to think its nice when the courts follow the rules. I also like free speach. Based on the small amount of the article posted I do not see where anyones rights where violated. And based on the same it appears the racist wakos rights would have been violated had an injunction been issued.

BTW I bet this same fair had 'religious' items for sale.

[madville]

207. might have had

The fair might have had Che shirts for sale as well, many people believe he murdered and tortured many people during his time in Cuba. Those shirts would be offensive to some, might as well ban them also. The point I'm trying to make is everything is offensive to somebody out there, you can't ban stuff just because it is offensive to some.

[rocktivity]

209. You have the option of not patronizing them

and sending home the vendors dirt poor. And if that happens often enough, they'll go out of business soon enough.

:headbang:
rocknation