You are yourself, with or without mask.
Just because you don't want to risk your entire career/social life and/or get arrested doesn't make you a coward.
Well, something like this.
You are yourself, with or without mask.
Just because you don't want to risk your entire career/social life and/or get arrested doesn't make you a coward.
Well, something like this.
In Texas and Louisiana it may be different. i remember the folks being hooded, but can't remember if they were fully hooded. The numbers of pros/versus were about the same from what i remember. but it was 20 years ago.
a fun point: the Grand whatever at one rally was so angry and whatnot. and at the end of his speech he left in a Toyota truck. i was very pleased with that.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Free speech doesn't have an anonymous clause?
Hey, nobody likes neo-Nazis (well, almost nobody), but what happens when we embrace the idea that anonymous speech isn't protected by free speech? After all, think of all the anonymous individuals who have helped to document abuse (frequently through filming) at factory farms and slaughterhouses. Does their work not fall under free speech, even if they wish to remain anonymous?
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
Free speech is the banner that bigoted cowards usually hide behind, though these idiots are also hiding behind a mask too.
There is a difference between petitioning and campaigning and protesting outside parliament if you have a problem with the immigration policy,
and marching in large groups dressed in cloaks and hoods similar to people who have lynched others, imitating marches people who have murdered millions have done.
It would probably make people scared to go outside if they saw them walking down their street, especially if you were an immigrant. Very intimidating. I. Their civil rights end when they set out intimidate and harass the vulnerable.
I agree with Freesia. These marchers, with their flaming torches and face masks, intend to intimmidate, not just exercise free speech rights.
And it's easy for those who don't have the immense black cloud of the Holocaust hanging over you to natter on about how awful it is that Germany has made hate speech illegal. You really have no idea.
And it's easy for those who don't have the immense black cloud of the Holocaust hanging over you to natter on about how awful it is that Germany has made hate speech illegal. You really have no idea.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
In case you were referring to my first comment (because I'm paranoid like that) know that I fully agree with you:
Yeah, it's understandable that Germany bans this stuff because they're still trying to make up for the whole Holocaust thing.
Which I guess upset a lot of people.
The KKK was very frightening to people of color for many years. I saw little African-american kids crying, holding on to an older adult's hand, being pulled away from a gathering of the Klan. The small Georgia town had a Watermelon Day in the summer where kids could eat free cold watermelon, play with hoses and sprinklers, run around spitting melon seeds. I was in college, and a bunch of us went. The KKK showed up, even carrying a scorched cross. Many of the older black ladies left immediately, and looked scared and shaken up. This was around 1980. The KKK can still wear the pointy white hoods, just not the face covering.
US states that have anti-masking laws have been challenged on free speech grounds. In Virginia, this opinion says
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...8MiLIkJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10
"The statute simply forbids the wearing of masks under certain circumstances. An obvious justification for such a prohibition is the prevention of violence, crime and disorder by the unmasking of potential criminals. For example, a potential rapist or bank robber wearing a mask could just as easily be prosecuted under this statute as a Klansman."
US states that have anti-masking laws have been challenged on free speech grounds. In Virginia, this opinion says
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...8MiLIkJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10
"The statute simply forbids the wearing of masks under certain circumstances. An obvious justification for such a prohibition is the prevention of violence, crime and disorder by the unmasking of potential criminals. For example, a potential rapist or bank robber wearing a mask could just as easily be prosecuted under this statute as a Klansman."
I disagree. If you believe in something so strongly that you're going to march for it, knowingly intimidating others in the process, then do it proudly, face to the sun. Hiding behind a mask is cowardly and mob-like.
I realized that - I wasn't referring to your posts.
I think that distinction exists for most of us in general. I stand by my earlier comment with respect to the subject at hand.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
Exactly. I have no tolerance for these groups and their "free speech" which have caused so much pain.
so, their free speech shouldn't exist? or, it should exist with you having no tolerance for it? lol
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,770
- Lifestyle
- Other
so, their free speech shouldn't exist? or, it should exist with you having no tolerance for it? lol
No, to me "free speech" is things like petitioning, and peaceful protests in areas which do not obstruct other people from going about their business. If free speech is expressed in a way which intimidates and harasses others, then it crosses the line into harassment and hate, and violating the rights of others. When this happens, "free speech" becomes something I will not support or tolerate.
kazyeeqen
Superb Owl
Because of the glitter, right?
Man do I hate glitter.
*shudder*
Anyway, there is obviously no comparison between the messages of a pride parade and the ones of a KKK rally. One is about equality, the other about superiority, and the folks at the pride parade, as a group, don't have a history of brutalizing and oppressing another group, unlike neo-nazis.
interesting point. there are people out there that feel the same with pride parades. i would assume there are some that feel intimidated by them. Plus, from their viewpoints (which they obv. feel are correct) this is something very unethical and an affront to them.
It's definitely not on the level of promoting hatred or violence, but there are others that view it probably on the same level as people on here view nazis.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Free speech protects more than just neo-Nazi scum. Even anonymous free speech protects more than neo-Nazi scum. For USians, it's a tradition that goes back before the founding of the country - several of the founders wrote papers criticizing the British government under pseudonyms. It's a tradition that continues today - for example, if you ever pick up a book with women talking about their abortions, it's pretty common for the women to be anonymous, for obvious reasons.
There are a lot of controversial issues today, like abortion. Anonymity allows those who are afraid of vigilante action to openly discuss such issues in various mediums.
There seems to be an attitude, especially in America, that rights only extend to people you agree with. That's not how rights work. For rights to be effective, they have to apply to the people you disagree most strongly with. Else we start chipping away at "rights" until they are no longer protecting us.
Similar threads
