Quote :

"so if a bunch of people were having a pro-jihad rally and expressing their views, it would be ok?"

It should be legal, yes.

10/16/2005 8:10:26 PM

ok, let me restate what i meant by "ok"

if they were having the pro-jihad rally outside of a Nascar event, would you or would you not issue the marching permit as a governing official? and would you or would you not expect violence to erupt?

10/16/2005 8:14:47 PM

the guys in Toledo didn't give the Nazis a permit... or at least they revoked it

hard to stop 'em from marching on the sidewalk, though

10/16/2005 8:17:18 PM

^ They still had a police escort, even without a permit.

10/16/2005 8:19:48 PM

yeah, because of the city's duty to provide police protection or whatever

otherwise the Nazi's might have sued the city

10/16/2005 8:29:34 PM

I thought it was established somewhat recently that the police technically have no responsibility to protect the citizenry?

10/16/2005 8:34:25 PM

The permit wasn't revoked though until after the Nazis had assembled... it's a little late by then, isn't it?

10/16/2005 8:37:59 PM

maybe the police protection was only because of the original permit then

the police didn't use their muscle to make sure the Nazis got to march down public streets, though

10/16/2005 8:40:56 PM

They should have shut down the march before it started.

10/16/2005 8:51:17 PM

What's the extent of a person's right to physical safety?

I mean, if you are gonna go up to some rough looking dude and say "NIGGA I FUCKED YO MAMA!" I don't know how bad I would feel for you if he punched you in the face.

10/16/2005 8:53:47 PM

Quote :

"what happens to be a predominantly black area"

you say that like it was a fucking accident? OOPS! look at all these black people here! where did they come from?

Quote :

"neanderthals that call themselves "Aryan". they are NOT "Aryan" they are "White", "Nordic", and everything else, but not "Aryan"."

equally as stupid are the blacks that call themselves "African Americans."

10/16/2005 9:34:26 PM

Quote :

"I mean, if you are gonna go up to some rough looking dude and say "NIGGA I FUCKED YO MAMA!" I don't know how bad I would feel for you if he punched you in the face."

It's like this thread I guess:

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=357611

10/16/2005 9:47:06 PM

Quote :

"so if a bunch of people were having a pro-jihad rally and expressing their views, it would be ok? would you be surprised if people started attacking the marchers? Smoker is right because you CAN NOT run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!""

If Muslim citizens had been the target of ethnic intimidation (i.e. death threats) I think the response would be rather different. And yes I think that it would be ok, as long as the extent was marching and expressing their views. The problem with some people who would rather be politically correct than correct is that they would like to make thinking a certain way a crime. The constituion does not guarantee you the right to not be offended. It does however allow for citizens to peacefully express their views.

In addition, expressing one's views and ideas is hardly yelling fire in a crowded theater. If you don't see a difference I suggest either dropping out or taking a basic logic class.

Quote :

"incase you didn't know, Nazis killed more Americans than islamo-facists"

Really? You mean more Americans died in WWII than in terrorist attacks and wars in the Middle East? When was this discovered? It's news to me[/sarcasm]. Did the Nazi's kill them with thoughts, words and marches? That seems unlikely. It seems more likely that violence took place, which was not the case with the Nazi's in Toledo. The only violent acts were committed by those opposing the protest (gangs, Communist and Sharps). If the Nazi's had been violent then they would have been wrong as well.

Adults ought to be able to handle what others say without resorting to violence (even if they say something bad about your mother).

For those that weren't awake during Middle School or High School or have never put in the effort to look at their rights:

Quote :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you want it changed write your congressperson and have them draft an amendment to repeal the 1st Amendment.

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 10:13 PM. Reason : meh]

10/16/2005 10:01:48 PM

Quote :

"o if a bunch of people were having a pro-jihad rally and expressing their views, it would be ok? "

'fraid so. Freedom of speech and all.

Quote :

"would you be surprised if people started attacking the marchers? Smoker is right because you CAN NOT run into a crowded theater and yell "Fire!""

Running into a theater and yelling "Fire!" puts others in eminent danger. Running into an open field and yelling "The Jews and Blacks are secretly running the planet!" cannot be construed as putting others in danger. At best, you have put yourself in danger. Just as an individual that walks up to a tough guy and insults him has only endangered himself. This is the moral argument in defence of the existing legal rules.

10/16/2005 10:03:49 PM

Quote :

"you say that like it was a fucking accident? OOPS! look at all these black people here! where did they come from?"

you kinda completely totally missed the point

and obviously they targeted that area

10/16/2005 10:17:50 PM

Quote :

"Freedom of speech and all."

An anti-American, pro-jihadist rally would be what is commonly referred to as "treason" -- in effect, it amounts to inciting war against the United States.

(it's called the War on Terror for a reason, folks)

You wouldn't very well expect that during World War II, the Japanese sympathizers could hold a pro-Japan war rally on our streets, do you?

Quote :

"Running into an open field and yelling "The Jews and Blacks are secretly running the planet!" cannot be construed as putting others in danger. At best, you have put yourself in danger."

Of course not -- that's why a RIOT BROKE OUT OVER IT.

Did you stop and consider that if there were no serious problems with public displays of Nazi ideology, we wouldn't have this thread right now?

Sheesh.

10/16/2005 11:37:58 PM

Quote :

"The constituion does not guarantee you the right to not be offended. It does however allow for citizens to peacefully express their views."

No, but it does delegate to the states the constitutional right to prevent their citizens from being offended.

Try actually reading the Bill of Rights sometime, especially the ninth and tenth amendments. You might learn something.

Quote :

"For those that weren't awake during Middle School or High School or have never put in the effort to look at their rights"

Yes, see the part in there where it says "Congress shall make no law?"

The amendment is talking about CONGRESS, not Toledo's city government. Now we're moving from first-amendment absolutism to fourteenth-amendment absolutism.

10/16/2005 11:41:02 PM

Last I checked the States ratified the Constitution thereby agreeing to the contents. This would mean that while States and local governements have the right to have laws above and beyond those at the federal level, state and local governement laws contrary to those of the federal did not take precedence. Plz to see laws regarding medicinal marijuina in CA. So if the states can keep their citizens from being offended without violating principles laid out in the constitution then they can go right ahead. Nice try though.

[Edited on October 16, 2005 at 11:47 PM. Reason : blah]

10/16/2005 11:46:46 PM

And from the Ohio Constitution.

Quote :

"The people have the right to assemble together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct their representatives; and to petition the general assembly for the redress of grievances."

10/16/2005 11:49:38 PM

And last I checked, the laws in Toledo clearly allow for protest permits to be issued as one was issued.

The Nazis did not break the law in Toledo. If your point is to argue that such a law would not be unconstitutional then I must simply point out that the democratically elected representatives of Toledo have decided not to restrict such rights, be it tradition or whatever.

Quote :

"Did you stop and consider that if there were no serious problems with public displays of Nazi ideology, we wouldn't have this thread right now?"

Nope, the problem here was not that Nazi protests cause serious problems but because many Americans are incapable of controlling their emotions. There is NO excuse for harming innocent people or destroying the property of innocent people. When you set a building on fire illegally it does not matter why you broke the law, only that you did so and should be punished.

What would you say if the Nazi protest engendered nothing more than apathy and firery columns in the local newspaper? That the local blacks acted irrationally by NOT tearing their own city apart? This is not the first Nazi rally this year, only the first one to promote such a violent response (most cities just close up shop during the protest or refuse to serve the participants).

10/16/2005 11:57:36 PM

Quote :

"Plz to see laws regarding medicinal marijuina in CA"

Medicinal marijuana is a matter of interstate commerce. Plz to read the constitution.

Once again, the Constitution is absolutely unambiguous when it says "CONGRESS shall make no law."

Are you trying to tell me that federalism doesn't exist?

Quote :

"And from the Ohio Constitution"

Well, see, now the burden of proof is on you. Now you've back-pedalled from the Eternal Principle of Federal Free Speech, to matters of Ohio law -- and I am assuming you are not an Ohio magistrate, capable of telling me what particular limitations and interpretations their judicial system places on that right.

Unless you're willing to take the same crack-headed approach put forth so far that the right to assembly is absolute, and that it is never weighed against any compelling interest of the state, such as pubic morality, decency, security, etc.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" decision is a metaphor -- that Justice Holmes was putting forth to note that the state's compelling interests are weighed against rights.

I mean, the case that spurned it was a mere pamphlet suggesting one peacefully resist the draft. Surely noone was in imminent danger from a _pamphlet_. Yet the state had a compelling interest in our security in drafting troops for the war.

In the case of Nazi ideology, the Nazis are spreading a vision of a monolithic ideology which led to a World War. Surely the state has a compelling interest in preventing the spread -- in public forums, at least, to people who DON'T know better -- of that ideology.

10/17/2005 12:25:10 AM

Quote :

"The Nazis did not break the law in Toledo ... If your point is to argue that such a law would not be unconstitutional then I must simply point out that the democratically elected representatives of Toledo have decided not to restrict such rights, be it tradition or whatever. "

My position thus far has been that the state of Ohio should ban these displays of Nazi ideology. I never argued that the Nazis were breaking the law in this instance.

As to what's happened thus far -- that's not relevant, either. What they should do, and what they have done, are two different matters.

But that's quite a back-pedal you made from The Eternal Principle of Absolute Free Speech according to Our Holy Federal Constitution.

Quote :

"There is NO excuse for harming innocent people or destroying the property of innocent people. When you set a building on fire illegally it does not matter why you broke the law, only that you did so and should be punished."

No, but I think there are plenty of good excuses for throwing rocks at Nazi scumbags.

It may not be legal -- but from any other perspective, they deserve it.

As to the political matter of why these displays should be banned -- see my previous posts (I'm not going to repeat them just because you're lazy).

And as to the riots at large, that's a different matter too -- clearly the gangs were at fault. Maybe the state should ban the assembly of gangs, too.

10/17/2005 12:46:09 AM

The reference to Ohio law was due to the fact that you seemed to imply that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with peoples actual rights so long as it is at a local level, but in this instance the local level also had the same law. It is my understanding that a citizen of the United States can count on being protected by the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution no matter where he goes in the country. I believe we as Americans have the right to express any idea good or bad as long as it is done in a peaceful manner. Notice I'm not saying you should be allowed to yell fire in a theater as that has nothing to due with expressing an idea. I'm not saying I think the Nazi's are good or that their message is good, but once you start infringing one group's rights where does it stop? You stated that you don't believe that Nazis should be allowed to assemble in public, other people might have the belief that blacks, Communists, Christians, women, college students, the elderly, etc. shouldn't be allowed to assemble in public. Government officials might decide that anyone who disagrees with them at all is indecent and should not be able to assemble or express ideas. I just see it as a slippery slope to losing more of our rights (like the Patroit Act hasn't done enough).

And slightly off-topic I'm also not a supporter of having to have permission to protest/march/demonstrate. As far as I'm concerned it's a right and government has no business to say whether a person or group can or not. If violence breaks out then they have the right to arrest and prosecute those who are involved in the violent acts.

10/17/2005 7:33:19 AM

^^ you're a goddamned idiot if you think anyone deserves to be assaulted (with deadly weapons even) for their political ideologies.

you've proven time and again in this thread that you are an idiot.

i'm through.

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 8:23 AM. Reason : *]

10/17/2005 8:23:34 AM

Quote :

"Once again, the Constitution is absolutely unambiguous when it says "CONGRESS shall make no law.""

Read the 14th Amendment.

Quote :

"I mean, the case that spurned it was a mere pamphlet suggesting one peacefully resist the draft. Surely noone was in imminent danger from a _pamphlet_. Yet the state had a compelling interest in our security in drafting troops for the war."

Well obviously restricting the pamphlet was wrong. That was back in the days of that "clear and present danger" bullshit.

Quote :

"And as to the riots at large, that's a different matter too -- clearly the gangs were at fault. Maybe the state should ban the assembly of gangs, too."

Hell, why not just cut that whole freedom of assembly thing out the First Amendment? What good has it done anyone?

Quote :

"you're a goddamned idiot if you think anyone deserves to be assaulted (with deadly weapons even) for their political ideologies."

I think most Americans believe that Nazis should be attacked. We've all seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, right?

10/17/2005 12:22:03 PM

Quote :

"But that's quite a back-pedal you made from The Eternal Principle of Absolute Free Speech according to Our Holy Federal Constitution. "

You're just wrong. Where did I say I felt it was morally right BECAUSE it said so in the constitution? I would be against banning free speech if I lived in Great Britain where there is no local/federal constitution to guarantee anything.

The question you have failed to answer is where YOU want the line drawn. Who makes the decision as to who can protest in public? George Bush? The Governor? The Mayor? And where do you draw the line in his ability to make the decision? Anything he doesn't like cannot protest?

Did it occur to you that in some cities or states it would only be the Nazi which are allowed to protest? If the Mayor is a member of the KKK, then it strikes me that it would be everyone BUT Nazis which would be determined as offensive and thus banned. Do you not see the conflict here?

Or is it your point that no group should ever be allowed to protest in public? At least then it would be fair and there would not be a conflict of decision making...

10/17/2005 1:20:59 PM

RACISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

10/17/2005 1:41:15 PM

10/17/2005 1:54:49 PM

Nazis.

I hate these guys.

10/17/2005 5:01:58 PM

Suppose there were laws prohibiting 'offensive groups' from protesting.

Who determines what is and is not offensive?

Some people find gays offensive. Should they be prevented from holding gay pride days?

Abortion. Each side finds the other offensive. Should both be prevented from demonstrating?

George Bush. Should his supporters and detractors be prevented from demonstrating? Each offends the other.

Women's suffrage. Many used to find this concept offensive. Should they have bee prevented from protesting?

Nazi ideology is certainly repulsing. But I'd rather tolerate (ignore) the occasional Nazi marches than put into someone else's hands the decision to deem a particular group offensive.

10/17/2005 7:23:37 PM

the gang bangers were lookin for an excuse to riot.

[Edited on October 17, 2005 at 8:59 PM. Reason : .]

10/17/2005 8:58:52 PM

Quote :

"The question you have failed to answer is where YOU want the line drawn."

I didn't fail to answer that question -- it's just such a stupid question, it's not worth asking. Now that I've made a suggestion about one law, I'm now supposed to propose all the laws?

My position is umambiguously: public displays of Nazi ideology should be illegal.

If you're confused about what boundaries the Constitution places on rights vis a vis the law, then that's your hang-up. Figure it out yourself.

And I'm not really impressed by the "if we ban Nazis in public, some towns will only have Nazi displays" argument. That's just intellectually-lazy hyperbole (which has so far characterized this discussion, so I am not surprised -- but it's not worth my time, either).

10/17/2005 11:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Some people find gays offensive. Should they be prevented from holding gay pride days? Abortion. Each side finds the other offensive. Should both be prevented from demonstrating? George Bush. Should his supporters and detractors be prevented from demonstrating? Each offends the other. Women's suffrage. Many used to find this concept offensive. Should they have bee prevented from protesting?"

Already addressed this one. For one, gays already dealt with being banned from public life, and from free assembly -- in private, even! -- so the pity party for moderate ideologies doesn't impress me.

Furthermore, I am -- once again -- not impressed by the "slippery slope" argument about the law. As I've said many times before, many Americans fought and died in a bloody World war that was fueled by Nazi/fascist ideology. If you're not imaginative enough to distinguish that level of vile ideology from the ones you've listed, please seek your own inner counsel on the matter.

10/17/2005 11:42:11 PM

Quote :

"Read the 14th Amendment."

Uh, right, you mean the part that says:

"You know, we were actually kidding when we wrote the first amendment, and it said 'Congress shall make no law!' States' rights are now officially repealed! Let's go have a beer, guys!"

10/17/2005 11:51:31 PM

I think you've lost focus on the point of this thread. The point is that black people are too lazy to find and fight the people they so adamantly opposed so they just break and steal shit of whoever's nearby.

10/18/2005 12:07:42 AM