I guess i dont get it

[Trooper]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/15/nazi.march/


toledo ohio had a neo-nazi rally. Toledo is largely hard working blacks who have done alot for that town, so why would a rally be held there. need less to say riots started and alot of people got arrested and hurt. I guess i just dont get why people think that way...anyone wanna help me.

[CingularDuality]

Some people just thrive on hatred...

[Trooper]

yah i know its just awfull...

[SmokingTarpan]

Why wouldn't Neo Nazis rally in a black community? They want to create strife, and marching in an upscale white community wouldn't do it.

And you know what? They got exactly what they wanted. After the rally, that community rioted and tore apart its own property. The people there ended up doing nothing more than reinforcing to the Neo Nazis what the Neo Nazis already believe. In effect, the NN's will feel even more strengthened and justified in their cause. Shame on the community for being that stupid.

Note for the casual observer: I don't share the beliefs of the NN's, I think they're completely rediculous idiots.

By the way, according to the Fire Chief, no civilians were injured.

[AzzMan]

Nationalists/socialists are just as bad, for the record. I know a guy who at the mention of Columbine said, and I quote:

so many idiots gunned down before they were even able to waste away their life on foolish excess, and short sighted materialism...

Now how can anyone think that way and try to say that they're logical, at all?

[Wolfie]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

By the way, according to the Fire Chief, no civilians were injured.

Yeah, too bad for the police that were iinjured and they were there trying to prevent the violence and rioting from occurring....

[SmokingTarpan]

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Yeah, too bad for the police that were iinjured and they were there trying to prevent the violence and rioting from occurring....

I threw my comment in to point out that the police, despite being injured and dealing with idiotic people, managed to show restraint in not club anyone in the head. A good thing to see, in light of other recent and past events involving police.

[Wolfie]

A comment from the "victims"

http://www.foxtoledo.com/index.cfm?a...&storyid=82911

"We was mad at the police because they're protecting them [the Nazis]. They tear gas us shooting us with rubber bullets and (expletive) what the hell we was supposed to do," he said.

It is funny when you realize the NN demostration only was going to yell out insults and the gang members started to assault them when they were gathering in the park.

A perspective from the true victims

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=3986988

[Pickle]

The NN's marched in Ohio because they knew they would piss people off. Let's also keep in mind that the people who caused problems (for the most part) were gang members. Additionally, citizens are upset at the police for protecting the NN's. Let them be mad at the Supreme Court who has decided that they are entitled to express their speech. 1st ammendment right? As far as police showing restraint...they shouldn't have in this case. A brick shattered a police window and gave a cop a concussion. Yeah, let's show restraint

[leejo]

Say what you want about tenets of national socialism. At least it's an ethos!

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by Wolfie

It is funny when you realize the NN demostration only was going to yell out insults and the gang members started to assault them when they were gathering in the park.

That almost sounds like a defense of the Neo-Nazis. Those poor racist bigots; they were only going to instigate misery and fear, but not physically hurt anyone. I can't believe those brutish gang members would react like that. How dare they!

But this kind of speech is definately a thorny issue. Speech expressing hate, or perhaps more generally, inciteful speech. This story seems to bear similarities to the Protestant-Catholic relations in Northern Ireland. Every year, the Orangemen march, and the Catholics become livid (perhaps rightfully so).

Not all inciteful speech is negative though. I would be fairly comfortable as classifying all political rhetoric as inciteful speech, but that doesn't mean that all politics is negative. Indeed, almost all the speechs that I can think of, representative of the most powerful, positive speechs given in our society are inciteful:
-JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
-MLK's "I have a dream..."
-Churchill's "We will never surrender."

Also, the foundation of a free society rests upon the fundamental freedoms, of which speech (inciteful and the other types too) is pretty much first on the list. It would be absurd to talk about simply not allowing inciteful speech to be part of our culture.

But how do you delineate, in legal terms, the differences between the good kinds of inciteful speech and the bad kinds? Who determines what is good and bad? I don't know the answer to this, but I can outline the two types of options:

1) Consensus; Majority rules - a simple interpretation of most modern democracies. Without addressing issues of minority representation, this problem is vulnerable to "Tyranny of the Majority". Effectively, minority and dissenting opinion is suppressed and/or made illegal.

2) Individuals; A person would be allowed to say whatever it pleases him or her to say, period. This opens the door for every kind of nutter to start spewing out any kind of misinformation, lies and hatred they so desire.

I think the answer, as with most things, lies in between the two extremes. Perhaps, on issues of fundamental freedoms, referenda ought to be held which would need to meet some kind of super-majority (maybe a super-duper-majority?) in order to determine which limitations would pass (and anything not explicitly barred by the set of passed limitations would be allowed).

Anyways, just a few thoughts.

As for the hatred issue, I think Cing is right; some people thrive on hatred. Personally, I think we all have a little hate somewhere in our hearts (even if we don't say it), and we hold it close to how we define ourselves. To be truly without hate is to be like Jesus, or the Buddha.

Dice.

[Diceman]

Incidentally, I found an interesting article on Wikipedia while composing my previous post; for anyone with a passing interest, I would say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[Wolfie]

Originally Posted by Diceman

That almost sounds like a defense of the Neo-Nazis. Those poor racist bigots; they were only going to instigate misery and fear, but not physically hurt anyone. I can't believe those brutish gang members would react like that. How dare they!

Oh get off your high horse.

Just as you have the right to call them bigots, they have the right to spew whatever hateful message they want to. Just because I support their right to say what they want to say, doesn't mean I support their message.

The gang members could have easily choosen to ignore the NN. What did they do? They attacked the NN, they attacked the police, they attacked innocent people who happened to live in that area. Who in this case is the attacker???

[AzzMan]

They have free speech but that doesn't mean they should use it that way Wolfie. For God's sake the people were instigating the attack, it was their fault anyone got hurt. They thought that way, they acted upon their thoughts, they got what was coming to them.

[poe]

Originally Posted by Wolfie

The gang members could have easily choosen to ignore the NN. What did they do? They attacked the NN, they attacked the police, they attacked innocent people who happened to live in that area. Who in this case is the attacker???

You taunt a bully and get into a fight, and you both get injured.

Your fault: Luring the 'opposition'
Bully's fault: Being lured, but people taunting usually aim for weaknesses that make them hard to ignore. +1 for your fault.


Let's toss in another figure. A teacher breaks up the fight and gets hurt by you because they happen to cross your path.
Your fault: Not restraining yourself. But are you able once you're in that rush?
Teacher's fault: Getting in the way. Good intentions, but cannot blame either for getting hurt - bounding into a melee ends often with injury.

Next: The teacher defends you, even though you are the original cause (without you, nothing would have happened).
In this case, my opinion is that both should be equally punished, only because it is unjust to deal different amounts of punishment when they both, essentially, did the same crime.

Free speech is broad and allows very much to be said. Good or bad thing? Good. Reprocussions? Many.

+1 post? Naw. Apply to the above scenarios. This is just simplified.