First Amendment Violation?

"When you can sit and listen to a man whose words make your blood boil, standing center stage advocating at the top of his lunges that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours; then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free... and how great it is."- A probably less than accurate quote of Michael Douglas as "The American President". During this speech he convinced me beyond a doubt that flag burning has to be protected by the first amendment. It is the extremes that keep the middle-ground safe for us all.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supremes once observed that freedom of speech does not assure the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. So long as those loonies do not advocate taking violent or criminal action, they're fine. First time they cross that line, they're toast. I'll guaran-damn-tee ya that the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center know all about those silly boys, and regularly monitor their activities.

Since most European (EU) countries have laws against such websites, the ultra-rights now register theirs mostly in the USA.

Our state "FBI" knows about 1307 of such websites hosted in the USA.

Re: First Amendment Violation?


Of course it is. The first amendment was written to protect exactly this type of speech.

Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need first amendment protection.

But look at it this way. The fact that these neo-nazis have the right to express themselves without fear of repression should make you feel secure. There is no fear that they will be anything more than fringe lunatics, as long as the rest of us have the right to express ourselves.

The way to deal with these nuts is to keep them in the open. Let them have their say and then respond clearly and rationally. These ideas are much more dangerous when they are kept underground.

Students in my school looked up neo-nazi sites as part of classwork. It was very educational and allowed teachers to address what they were saying and more importantly to discuss the allure that hatred has, and its ability to attract some people.

Taking away rights is dangerous. Free speech is one of the things that is very right about the US.

Re: First Amendment Violation?


I sincerely doubt that the collective intelligence of the people that wrote the first amendment did so to protect racist bigots who would seek to incite others to fight maim and kill.

As for your statement:

(Speech that isn't offensive doesn't need first amendment protection.)

If you are not offended by African Americans being referred to as "Wogs" and the song "Coon Hunt" Then you have a different take on free speech than I do.

EBROWN, I edited the last bit because when I read it back it sounded rude which is not what I intended. I'm sorry if it caused offence.

I think it was Justice Brandeis who said "sunlight is the best disinfectant". As long as the nuts are in the open the countervailing opinions of the majority of the population keep them in check and marginal. It is when these kind of people are suppressed and forced underground that they matastasize. Although they have crawled out from under a rock, you want to keep them out where they ultimately shrieval.

Acquiunk,

We think differently, not because we are a different species, but simply that we react differently to situations, depending upon where we are born and bred, from what I have seen of it, the first amendment has been abused to the point where it no longer bears any resemblance to it's intended purpose.

The founding fathers of America did not intend that their first amendment would be used to promote racial discrimination, or any other kind of discrimination. Their intentions were clear (at the time) they have since been bent out of shape by people who would seek to re- interpret these good intentions for their own ends.

As "for nuts in the open" could that apply to: Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering etc.

The Founding Father of America were quite comfortable with racial discrimination. A slave was 3/5 of a white man in the Constitution... remember?

As for Hitler et al. the institutional framework that should have contained him collapsed when he challenged it and then no one else stood up to him, Britain France, the US though they all knew he was a dangerous fanatic. The fact that he was out in the open haas prevented the kind of destructive historical revisionism the come from everyone saying "we didn't know". They did. Which has force western culture to face it's failure.

I didn't know that Acquiunk, but so what, are you saying that today february 2004, a black person is 3/5 of a white man?

The US had a civil war, a long and destructive one, brought on in part because slave holders attempted to suppress discussion of the issue through a congressional gag order.

No, not any more.