Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They're allowed to exist for the same reason that we're allowed to point out that they're racist morons.

Freedom O' Speech.

FYI, Stormfront is situated in 'Merica, so it doesn't have all those British hate speech laws applying to it.

Kovnik Obama wrote:you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

Sounds like dangerous propaganda. Careful or someone will report you for inciting violence against political groups.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is no law against inciting racial hatred in the US.

That's pretty dumb, or sad, or both... I don't care much about what happens on the Internet, because it's the Internet and you would be a fool to care too much about it... but if you go around and publicly assemble to shout that kind of dangerous propaganda, then you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it. At least I hope that the U.S. judges are lenient when condemning acts of violence directed toward neo-nazi scum...

It's there to allow people like you to write things like "you deserve to get repeatedly punched in the face for it." and not get arrested.
Essentially, it's present to fight the possibility of fascism (whether right wing or liberal) from coming to exist without a fight in the system.

dæl wrote:

Piston Honda wrote:

Melissia wrote:

How many times have I been banned from this site for stating a fact?

Dunno, but the so-called "facts" spouted by the idiots at stormfront are, at best, questionable, and at worst, outright lies.

you do know most of their facts come from medical text books and journals printed in the 1920s or in Nazi Germany, right?

Jews changed all that, apparently.

Don't see your point, are you saying they are facts and proven in books that have since been altered, or that these people are using deliberately misleading information gleaned from prejudiced material?

Thats quite a brilliant use for auto-tune btw.

They are using out dated medical text books that are inherently racist. Like Rosenau's medical text books which had African Americans having smaller brains as medical fact, African Americans were naturally uncivilized. Interracial activities are medically condemned.

This is not some White supremacist piece of propaganda. It was a text book used at Harvard, UNC, Yale etc.

The amount of discrimination against African Americans, women, Asians, poor people is rather quite interesting because they present it as facts with no information how or why. Rather it is just opinions or wishful thinking.

It is these kind of "facts" people at Storm Front bring up in arguments, saying they are true. But they believe in the Jewish conspiracy. Jews manipulated all of medicine.

So inciting violence against enemies of the State is now a hate crime? I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes, Biccat. Anyway, doesn't surprise me that someone with as little common sense as you would then automatically go back to the 'free speech goes both ways' defense, as if there wasn't obvious and reasonnable indications that such political orientations are highly dangerous to a prosper society.

Fascism is not a political party to these kids, it's a way of obtaining political meaning. That distinction alone brings it closer to something like terrorism than a political position in the left-right spectrum. In a democracy, you have to repress groups that use non-democratic means, like hatred.

TL, DR version : Hatred of hate isn't hate speech, it's a healthy attitude!

Kovnik Obama wrote:So inciting violence against enemies of the State is now a hate crime? I think you know nothing about the legal definition of hate crimes, Biccat. Anyway, doesn't surprise me that someone with as little common sense as you would then automatically go back to the 'free speech goes both ways' defense, as if there wasn't obvious and reasonnable indications that such political orientations are highly dangerous to a prosper society.

Fascism is not a political party to these kids, it's a way of obtaining political meaning. That distinction alone brings it closer to something like terrorism than a political position in the left-right spectrum. In a democracy, you have to repress groups that use non-democratic means, like hatred.

TL, DR version : Hatred of hate isn't hate speech, it's a healthy attitude!

Inciting violence is, regardless of its intended recipient, inciting violence. Hatred of hate is still hate.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

In any case, I think he was being sarcastic.

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

Inciting violence is, regardless of its intended recipient, inciting violence.

That's tautological. I think you mean to imply that it's wrong. In the sense that violence is always the mark of a less than optimal situation, yes, it's wrong. Unfortunately, it can become the only recourse left in order to avoid even worse situations (like fully grown national fascism)

Hatred of hate is still hate.

Yes, but it's directed at itself, so it should at least be self-aware. And that's way healthier (in my book at least) than blind hatred.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster

Sorry, I don't intend on letting monsters live free, least of all express freely their opinion so that they can perpetuate them.

If your going to continue the analogy perhaps you should take into account that by becoming monstrous you are perpetuating them, whilst simultaneously doubling their number. Giving them carte blanche to act as they wish is wrong but acting like them in a bid to get rid of them reduces your worth to the level of theirs.

But I don't act like them, see? Their violence is to be institutionnalized at the State level, mine remains an entirely popular phenomenon, and desires nothing else but a return to the normal situation of democracy. I'm advocating violence as a temporary means to avoid further violence, while they advocate violence in order to institute a state of terror and racial repression... And you don't see the difference?

Kovnik Obama wrote:But I don't act like them, see? Their violence is to be institutionnalized at the State level, mine remains an entirely popular phenomenon, and desires nothing else but a return to the normal situation of democracy. I'm advocating violence as a temporary means to avoid further violence, while they advocate violence in order to institute a state of terror and racial repression... And you don't see the difference?

I see advocating violence toward a group of people based on what they think. And you don't see how that's wrong?

If these people are engaged in violence, there are laws in place to deal with them, at which point they should be deal with for the violence alone. Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

No, I said to be violent toward them based on the way they act on their beleif. I even went as far as say that it doesn't matter if they want to assemble virtually on the Internet. But public assembly is a political action, and when it advocates the overthrowing of the rightfull government, followed by pogroms, then I react accordingly.

Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

And slippety slope arguments are the weakest of arguments.

Kovnik Obama wrote:No, I said to be violent toward them based on the way they act on their beleif. I even went as far as say that it doesn't matter if they want to assemble virtually on the Internet. But public assembly is a political action, and when it advocates the overthrowing of the rightfull government, followed by pogroms, then I react accordingly.

Criminalising thought and speech is a slippery slope.

And slippety slope arguments are the weakest of arguments.

If people are engaged in treason or enacting a coup, then i'm pretty sure there will be laws covering that. The right to peacefully protest is a basic right of democracy. Or are people only allowed to engage in political actions when you agree with their politics?

Care to explain why slippery slope arguments are any weaker than claiming your opinion is "popular" with no evidence.

Kovnik, your attitude scares me. You want to revoke these people's Freedom of Speech on the grounds that you disagree with them. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed basic human rights.

Kovnik, your attitude scares me. You want to revoke these people's Freedom of Speech on the grounds that you disagree with them. I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed basic human rights.

Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

And I deny them one basic right on the ground of their inability to responsably use it. We deny such rights (up to legal representation before a tribunal in the case of abusive quemanders) on a pretty regular basis, when reasonnable tests are passed.

If people are engaged in treason or enacting a coup, then i'm pretty sure there will be laws covering that. The right to peacefully protest is a basic right of democracy. Or are people only allowed to engage in political actions when you agree with their politics?

Laws didn't cover it back in the 30s, why would they now? Sometimes, the populace's vigilance is necessary.

Care to explain why slippery slope arguments are any weaker than claiming your opinion is "popular" with no evidence.

The essence of a slippery slope argument is to denote a risk that isn't apparent initially in a given situation. The simple fact that you tell me that this is a slippery slope argument is, in theory, sufficient to annul the opposition brought by you telling me it : you just made me aware of the risk. Thus I can safely say that the argument is still worthy, because you've allowed me to avoid the slippery side of it.

And 'popular' was used in the context of 'originating from the populace', not in the sense that my opinion is widely present. Which I think it is, but haven't any proof of...

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Correction : on the ground that political and social science and history has proven that these people will use Freedom of Speech in order to implant a government that will then deny everyone else's Freedom of Speech. They will also use and abuse every other democratical rights to deny those same rights after.

And I deny them one basic right on the ground of their inability to responsably use it. We deny such rights (up to legal representation before a tribunal in the case of abusive quemanders) on a pretty regular basis, when reasonnable tests are passed.

Because these people might deny human rights, we will deny human rights. This is the crux of your argument. I refer you to the Nietzsche quote earlier.
Show me a incident where people are relieved of their human rights when there is not an immediate threat to the nation, something white supremacists are not.

Laws didn't cover it back in the 30s, why would they now? Sometimes, the populace's vigilance is necessary..

The essence of a slippery slope argument is to denote a risk that isn't apparent initially in a given situation. The simple fact that you tell me that this is a slippery slope argument is, in theory, sufficient to annul the opposition brought by you telling me it : you just made me aware of the risk. Thus I can safely say that the argument is still safe, because you've allowed me to avoid the slippery side of it.

Treason is as old as the hills, I'm pretty sure it existed in the 30s. Hitler if that's who you are referring to, took power legally, via elections.

The inherent risk in claiming that these people are a potential threat to society so therefore they are absolved of their rights, is who decides what constitutes a threat. All your plan would do is make it easier for a future fascist regime to deny rights, as there would be a precident.

You do not win against white supremacy by denying them free speech, you give them a platform for their ridiculousness, just as Christopher Hitchens did.

And 'popular' was used in the context of 'originating from the populace', not in the sense that my opinion is widely present. Which I think it is, but haven't any proof of..

I didn't mean that thing that people normally mean, I meant another derivation. Hmmm...

Because these people might deny human rights, we will deny human rights. This is the crux of your argument. I refer you to the Nietzsche quote earlier.

Public assembly is already a political action. It's no longer a 'might', it's a 'will if allowed'. A criminal intent, when followed by steps taken toward the enactment of the intent, is sometimes enough to constitute a crime.

Show me a incident where people are relieved of their human rights when there is not an immediate threat to the nation, something white supremacists are not.

As mentionned previously, the case of abusive quemanders. We will deny someone the basic right to appeal to a court based on the fact that he has shown himself irresponsible in it's use. Then I could mention just about every criminal behind bars, to which we deny the basic human right of freedom because they have shown themselves incapable of using that right in a social context.

Treason is as old as the hills, I'm pretty sure it existed in the 30s. Hitler if that's who you are referring to, took power legally, via elections.

True, but there wasn't a crime of subverting democratic processes in order to abscond them in the future. And like you said, Hitler took power through legal means, which is why, at some point, the populace should have risen against his mouvement (since the government couldn't).

The inherent risk in claiming that these people are a potential threat to society so therefore they are absolved of their rights, is who decides what constitutes a threat. All your plan would do is make it easier for a future fascist regime to deny rights, as there would be a precident.

This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I didn't mean that thing that people normally mean, I meant another derivation. Hmmm...

It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

I know next to nothing about Black Supremacists, but I always had the impression they had a certain link to Islam... is that not true?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Public assembly is already a political action. It's no longer a 'might', it's a 'will if allowed'. A criminal intent is sometimes enough to constitute a crime.

Yes, criminal intent is relevant in trials, but you show me one incident where someone has been convicted of intending to commit a crime. There is no such thing, because it would be unprovable.

Kovnik Obama wrote:As mentionned previously, the case of abusive quemanders. We will deny someone the basic right to appeal to a court based on the fact that he has shown himself irresponsible in it's use. Then I could mention just about every criminal behind bars, to which we deny the basic human right of freedom because they have shown themselves incapable of using that right in a social context.

What exactly is an abusive quemander?
As for criminals...

Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence.
European Convetion of Human Rights

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.

I apologise, I didn't realise that someone who had committed a crime was no different from someone who hasn't and just thinks things you find unpalatable.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

Obvious from the context? If someone says the words "popular opinion." They do not generally mean 'originating from the populous' they mean an opinion widely held.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

This should help ease your confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy

AustonT wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

AustonT wrote:I'm pretty sure John Metzger spoke at a Nation of Islam rally in the 80's. Proving that white and black supremacists can find common ground...in antisemitism.

Since when did Black Supremacist = Islam?
I'm confused.

This should help ease your confusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_supremacy

Oh I see, the Nation of Islam is a Black Supremacist organization.
A nutty one too, by the looks of it, judging by the whole Yakub thing.

It was the first well-known one in the US, AFAIK.

LoneLictor wrote:They're allowed to exist for the same reason that we're allowed to point out that they're racist morons.

Freedom O' Speech.

FYI, Stormfront is situated in 'Merica, so it doesn't have all those British hate speech laws applying to it.

Ngghhaaahhhh

dæl wrote:
Yes, criminal intent is relevant in trials, but you show me one incident where someone has been convicted of intending to commit a crime. There is no such thing, because it would be unprovable.

Plotting is a crime

Kovnik Obama wrote:What exactly is an abusive quemander?

The term might be different in the States, or course, but it's someone who has been deemed to have request the judgement of the court for no valid reasons, and is thus denied the right to do such request in their own name in the future.

As for criminals...
Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence.
European Convetion of Human Rights

Yes. That's right, under the correct circumstances, we will deny the basic right of freedom to someone, based on their actions.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
This is what the criminal code already does. It doesn't mean the government is closer to being fascist.

I apologise, I didn't realise that someone who had committed a crime was no different from someone who hasn't and just thinks things you find unpalatable.

You again go back to the subjective argument. How can this be better explained to you? I believe that Fascism is objectively abject, it's a moral and social desease that cost us millions of life in the last century. If you want to attack this as 'my opinion', fine, refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense.

Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's an accepted use of the term, and it's pretty obvious from the context, I think. Anyway, got a problem with the ambiguity of certain terms, just ask, instead of assuming.

Obvious from the context? If someone says the words "popular opinion." They do not generally mean 'originating from the populous' they mean an opinion widely held.

I said a popular phenomenon, and opposed it to an action coming from the State. Thats the dichotomy you missed, I guess : government based action vs. citizenry based actions. In that context, yes, I thought it was obvious. Sorry if it wasn't.

Hate speech is illegal around here. Last I checked, France was not a fascist dictatorship. In fact, we're pretty itchy about our freedom of speech too. But hey, that places us on the proverbial slippery slope and we're firmly on our way to it, right ? Well, in fact, it's been the case since 1881, and still no would-be totalitarian government in sight...

I would be sincerely interested in discussing this matter, but as always, I see there is way too much emotion about it to allow for a constructive exchange, so I'll leave it at that. I guess there is no amendment that preaches open-mindedness.

Plotting is a crime

Plotting is an action, not an intent.

someone who has been deemed to have requestthe judgement of the court for no valid reasons, and is thus denied the right to do such request in their own name in the future.

Someone who has acted in a certain manner. again action, not thought or opinion.

You again go back to the subjective argument. How can this be better explained to you? I believe that Fascism is objectively abject, it's a moral and social desease that cost us millions of life in the last century. If you want to attack this as 'my opinion', fine, refer yourself to the political science school of Economy & Law, their model shows very well how democracy shouldn't imply allowing the tools for it's subversion. You'll have a theoritical model to back up what I thought was available to common sense

There is nothing subjective regarding one person being a criminal and the other not. One has broken the law, the other hasn't. Thats pretty absolute. I am not attacking your opinion on fascism, but your opinion on how to deal with fascism. If these people were an immediate threat to our way of life, and there were NO other options available to stop them then yes, violence and the suspension of their human rights would be the correct course of action. Neither of those prerequisites are there though.

I will say this one last time,
Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist.

You missed the part where I stated about 4 times already that I oppose their right to assemble publicly, not to think what they think.

If you are going to get all strung up about a thread, please read it properly, at least.

Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist.

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism. Being violent isn't being fascist.

There is nothing subjective regarding one person being a criminal and the other not.

That's funny, because half of the elements required to constitute a crime (the Mens Rea) is the subjective part of it.

Kovnik Obama wrote:You missed the part where I stated about 4 times already that I oppose their right to assemble publicly, not to think what they think.

If you are going to get all strung up about a thread, please read it properly, at least.

''Dealing with fascism in a fascist manner makes you a fascist. ''

Then you clearly know nothing about fascism. Being violent isn't being fascist.

I have read the thread, what with participating in it and all.

You wish that they receive violence for engaging in their basic, human right of freedom of assembly, based on what? Not that they are committing a crime, or have committed a crime, but that they might. And you base the fact they might on what exactly? That their ideology is a threat to the status quo? That's kind of the point of political protest, to challenge the status quo, or does democracy have such a tenuous grip on society that a tiny minority could usurp it?

Fascism in its most basic form is the belief we should all be the same, it achieves this aim through authoritarian means.

That's funny, because half of the elements required to constitute a crime (the Mens Rea) is the subjective part of it.

Thats quite funny, thinking criminal liability is the same as a crime.