I believe in freedom of speech,let me say that right off the bat....

But I also believe that hate-groups whose thugs have actually committed acts of hate and violence should not be allowed to spread their dirty works and misguided belief systems on the 'Net...People who are open to these haters and their message could very well be convinced to join those sub-humans..and pull off a Timothy McVeigh type of hate crime..

To prohibit speech based on what it might incite others to do is called "prior restraint."  Prior restraint has been found unconstitutional numerous times.  Generally, I agree with the courts on this one. 
Neo-nazis, white supremecists, eco-terrorists, and other "hate" groups are a despicable scourge we all wish would go away, but to deny them their freedom of speech would establish a precedent for denying the freedom of speech of others.  The current federal government would like nothing better.  They could say anti-Bush demonstrators are inciting terrorism and round them all up.  The could accuse a group such as Move On.org of advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, shut them down, and throw them in jail.
This is why I support the freedom to publish a book as ugly as "The Turner Diaries."  Start legislating on what "might" happen, and see freedom evaporate!

So what do you do when said neo-Nazis get up a plan to distribute hate filled music to kids at middle schools? :P

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4567_72.htm

So what do you do when said neo-Nazis get up a plan to distribute hate filled music to kids at middle schools? :P

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4567_72.htm

Say, "Keep on rockin' in the free world!"
:-\\

There was plenty of that garbage going around in the '80s when I was in HS.  A lot of it was spread by the father-son team of Tom and John Metzger, leaders of W.A.R. (White Aryan Resistance).  I personally saw schoolmates of mine pick up on idiotic skinhead hatemongering, decked out in shaven heads, bomber jackets, and Doc Martens with white laces.  It was truly disgusting.
Thanks to Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had been tracking the Metzgers for years, an Oregon jury handed down a 12.5 million judgment against the Metzgers for inciting the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant.  This curtailed the outreach of the Metzger hate machine.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Metzger.asp
Basically, the ADL is doing the best thing about the current hate campaign.  If the schools are aware of what to look for they can take action against individuals distributing such materials on campus.
I saw the tracklist of the sampler CD, and I've heard of some of those bands.  It's disgusting.  Responsible retail shop owners won't carry that garbage.  If they do, citizens can make enough of a stink to pressure the business to stop.
However, as ugly as the titles imply the songs are, I'm still against censorship unless there is explicit incitement to violent action in the lyrics.

Say, "Keep on rockin' in the free world!"
:-\\

There was plenty of that garbage going around in the '80s when I was in HS.  A lot of it was spread by the father-son team of Tom and John Metzger, leaders of W.A.R. (White Aryan Resistance).  I personally saw schoolmates of mine pick up on idiotic skinhead hatemongering, decked out in shaven heads, bomber jackets, and Doc Martens with white laces.  It was truly disgusting.
Thanks to Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had been tracking the Metzgers for years, an Oregon jury handed down a 12.5 million judgment against the Metzgers for inciting the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant.  This curtailed the outreach of the Metzger hate machine.
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Metzger.asp
Basically, the ADL is doing the best thing about the current hate campaign.  If the schools are aware of what to look for they can take action against individuals distributing such materials on campus.
I saw the tracklist of the sampler CD, and I've heard of some of those bands.  It's disgusting.  Responsible retail shop owners won't carry that garbage.  If they do, citizens can make enough of a stink to pressure the business to stop.
However, as ugly as the titles imply the songs are, I'm still against censorship unless there is explicit incitement to violent action in the lyrics.




Well put. I just hope the CD doesn't have much of an impact on the kids who DO get a copy of it. :P

ANY group should be allowed to distribute via the internet.  As long as they're not breaking any laws (i.e. pedophiles, etc.).

GG Allin has some songs about pedophilia (advocacy thereof).
:P

I don't like Nazis or hate thugs or any of those people.  >:( But they do have the right to distribute what they want. Really, though, is this right kept? You have the right to free speech to an extent.

You have the right to free speech to an extent.


True but all freedoms must have some regulation.  Do death threats fall under freedom of speech?  Does yelling ''FIRE!'' in a crowded building fall under freedom speech?

To prohibit speech based on what it might incite others to do is called "prior restraint." Prior restraint has been found unconstitutional numerous times. Generally, I agree with the courts on this one.
Neo-nazis, white supremecists, eco-terrorists, and other "hate" groups are a despicable scourge we all wish would go away, but to deny them their freedom of speech would establish a precedent for denying the freedom of speech of others.


I agree with you on this one, Max.  If you prohibit someone because of their message and how people might react, then the precident is set for other websites.  Someone might get a bee in their bonnet about Martha Stewart and decide she might need to be shut down because of her current troubles.

It is just not right to silence one just because they offend and teach hatred.  We just need to teach our children to be tolerant of others and their views and hope that they listen and learn from it.

True but all freedoms must have some regulation. Do death threats fall under freedom of speech? Does yelling ''FIRE!'' in a crowded building fall under freedom speech?


Read what you have quoted.  Crystal did say "to an extent" meaning we don't have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire. 

To prohibit speech based on what it might incite others to do is called "prior restraint."  Prior restraint has been found unconstitutional numerous times.  Generally, I agree with the courts on this one. 
Neo-nazis, white supremecists, eco-terrorists, and other "hate" groups are a despicable scourge we all wish would go away, but to deny them their freedom of speech would establish a precedent for denying the freedom of speech of others.  The current federal government would like nothing better.  They could say anti-Bush demonstrators are inciting terrorism and round them all up.  The could accuse a group such as Move On.org of advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, shut them down, and throw them in jail.
This is why I support the freedom to publish a book as ugly as "The Turner Diaries."  Start legislating on what "might" happen, and see freedom evaporate!



I agree with you 100%. One way to counter these hate groups is with more speech. Teaching our children that is NOT ok to hate people because of their beliefs, color, religion, etc. If no one is listening to their words, maybe they will go away. (Ok, ok, I am hoping).




Cat

This came up before in another thread, and Philbo informed me that I misquoted Voltair.  Let them distribute their hate CD, and let parants tell their kids to use it as a frisbee, and have them watch Shindler's List to see what that kind of hate can produce.

But, who's to be the judge of that?  Once we start banning one group because another may get offended, then we must ban all groups who may or may not offend someone, which is a frightening thought, IMO.  Like I said before, "as long as no laws are broken", anyone has the right to say whatever they wish.


I completely agree.  Free speech is the most fundamental right we have, and, as Tom Jefferson said regarding censorship, "Who's foot is to be the guide by which all others are streached or cut?"  Good old Tom.

This came up before in another thread, and Philbo informed me that I misquoted Voltaire.

Sorry if it's made a lasting impact ;)  ...it's just that that particular misquote does water down the effect.

I'm firmly on the free speech side here, too: you can't legislate or ban based on what someone might say, however much you disapprove of the message.  What you can do is help people think for themselves: the racist, bigoted message only gets through when people don't think, but react on an emotional level without the brain getting in the way.  Far and away the best thing is to highlight the blinkered stupidity that shines through this kind of hate (at least, that's what I try and do with my children, when they ask about this sort of thing).

As I said on another thread, hate is taught. And it is a shame that people are teaching it because they know it will never grow and flurish if they don't.




Cat

This came up before in another thread, and Philbo informed me that I misquoted Voltair.  Let them distribute their hate CD, and let parants tell their kids to use it as a frisbee, and have them watch Shindler's List to see what that kind of hate can produce.


The only problem is, there are a lot of people who believe that the holocost did not happen.  Then there are others that think that it did, but that it was ended to soon.

I remember an incident in LA when Schindler's List first came out.  There as a mini-riot because there were a group of skinheads in the audience, who actually applauded certain scenes in the movie.  I do not remember the outcome, but the kids were all banned from the theatre.

I agree with the belief that these groups have the right to spew their garbage.  But at the same time, they should be held accountable for actions of people who follow their message.  The Metzger's and several groups of KKK were brought down in just this way.

And of course, there is little we can really do about such things on the Internet.  Because it is global, all somebody has to do is start a website hosted in Tobago, China, Pakistan, Iran, or some other country.  Then there is not a thing anybody here in the US can do about it.  And I seriously doubt if Iran is going to try and stop a hate group that wants to kill Jews.

I agree with the belief that these groups have the right to spew their garbage. But at the same time, they should be held accountable for actions of people who follow their message. The Metzger's and several groups of KKK were brought down in just this way.

Very good point: if you're preaching some kind of message, then you bear at least in part the responsibility for others who follow: the "it's nothing to do with me" denial shouldn't work.

I completely agree.  Free speech is the most fundamental right we have, and, as Tom Jefferson said regarding censorship, "Who's foot is to be the guide by which all others are streached or cut?"  Good old Tom.


Ah! That must be an allusion to the Greek thief in mythology called Procrustes who lay people on his bed and made them it's size by stretching them or cutting their legs.

Free speech is very difficult to regulate because once you deny someone. It is easy to deny everyone.