Jump to content



Photo
pennsylvania first amendment freedom of speech george meade

  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#16 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 27 September 2013 - 19:55

What do you mean even the ACLU? This is something the ACLU would be expected to defend.


Because more than once so-called "liberal" groups, including ACLU and NOW, have turned their back on people/groups who they should have supported purely because of their politics. Sometimes they're just acting stupid and violate their own supposed principles..

Ex: ACLU rails against the NSA for obvious reasons, then they turn around and use sophisticated data mining and snooping of their own members finances to better fine-tune their fundraising efforts. Board members have broken away because of this privacy breech.

Don't even get me started on their failure to back conservative women or blacks when they should have.


#17 FlintyV

FlintyV

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,377 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06

Posted 27 September 2013 - 20:17

Nope, freedom of speech means just that, freedom to say what you want.

 

Start restricting speech, either by location or content, then there is no longer a 1st amendment right and then all speech must be restricted, including that which you agree with, to be fair.

 

Some people would say they would be fine with restricting certain speech that they don't agree with.

 

The danger is that then creates a state-sponsored speech. And if you don't agree with what the state wants to allow, you end up with what you see in Russia where just saying you support gay rights gets you put in prison.

 

Think about it people!!

 

No, it isn't. Everyone has to have equal access to the public square or freedom of speech means nothing. Even the ACLU has come down on the side of the KKK and neo-NAZI groups on this.

 

 

How? It's not free if you can only express it in certain places and/or certain times.

 

No one has the right not to be offended.

 

But the US already uses free speech zones. That's why I suggested it as there's precedent of it in the US. 

 

"The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression. "



#18 arachnoid

arachnoid

    Support the Cat federation against cruel Dogs

  • 4,007 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 11

Posted 27 September 2013 - 20:27

Do such events not get banned restricted through the high probability of civil unrest caused by holding such an event?



#19 compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • 8,581 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 27 September 2013 - 21:21

Because more than once so-called "liberal" groups, including ACLU and NOW, have turned their back on people/groups who they should have supported purely because of their politics. Sometimes they're just acting stupid and violate their own supposed principles..

Ex: ACLU rails against the NSA for obvious reasons, then they turn around and use sophisticated data mining and snooping of their own members finances to better fine-tune their fundraising efforts. Board members have broken away because of this privacy breech.

Don't even get me started on their failure to back conservative women or blacks when they should have.

 

 

I really wish people would link to a source when they post stuff. I don't just take what people say on the internet as being true.



#20 ncoday

ncoday

    Neowinian

  • 1,187 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: Eugene, OR

Posted 27 September 2013 - 21:54

 

 

 

 

But the US already uses free speech zones. That's why I suggested it as there's precedent of it in the US. 

 

"The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression. "

 

 I seriously disagree with those so-called "free speech zones". You essentially made my point I think. Setting a precedent is very dangerous as it can be used to go even further in restricting our rights.

 

As an example, I severely hate the Westboro Baptist Church and honestly wouldn't feel bad if some vets started a fight with them, but in the end, even people like that get the same rights to free speech as everyone else does.



#21 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,994 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 27 September 2013 - 22:47

Do such events not get banned restricted through the high probability of civil unrest caused by holding such an event?

The KKK does not have much influence anymore.



#22 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 27 September 2013 - 22:57

I don't think someone thought this one through.

Well, technically the KKK was born of ex-confederates so, it is a historically understandable spot for them to rally. I suppose. Does it really matter where? They have the right to do it. If there's still enough of them to gather, there is as good as any other spot.



#23 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 27 September 2013 - 23:08

I really wish people would link to a source when they post stuff. I don't just take what people say on the internet as being true.


ACLU on NSA privacy violations

https://www.aclu.org...s-rights-abuses

ACLU's hypocrisy

http://www.nytimes.c...&position=&_r=0

#24 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 28 September 2013 - 00:37

Does it really matter where? They have the right to do it. If there's still enough of them to gather, there is as good as any other spot.

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.



#25 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 September 2013 - 00:57

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.


Like it or not the KKK has its roots in the Civil War. Denying them their fundamental rights while allowing others of the opposite view is a bigger mockery.

#26 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,994 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:15

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.

Maybe they just want to honor their southern brethren.



#27 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:20

I would say yes, it does matter. Allowing that group into Gettysburg makes a mockery of everything that place stands for.

 

I guess I'm looking at it like the KKK is fallout from the Civil War. It's a part of that History. We do Civil War re-enactments and don't say, no one should be confederates, it was treason, murder, etc. etc. You gotta take the good with the bad when revisiting history. Get too bent out of shape about it and you empower them. That's what they want. They feel powerless and insignificant, which they are.

 

You do know that Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forest was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK don't you? Perhaps going to Gettysburg will educate people as to just who these people were and are ... evil losers.



#28 arachnoid

arachnoid

    Support the Cat federation against cruel Dogs

  • 4,007 posts
  • Joined: 03-November 11

Posted 28 September 2013 - 08:29

Now there's something I didn't know about the Confederates and all that but I guess it makes sense considering the war was based around if somewhat unintentionally, the emancipation of the coloured minority.



#29 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 September 2013 - 11:34

Other bits of history -

1) Klansmen were mostly Democrats, with Republicans mostly being the abolitionists against slavery.

2) the events around the (Virgil & Wyatt) Earp's Cochise County battles with Clanton gang (aka "Cowboys" because many of the 200-300 Cowboys were rustlers) was highly political, the Earp's being Republicans and the Clanton gang former Confederate Democrats. Some were Klansmen.

3) the 1924 Democrat Presidential Convention in New York City was known as the Klanbake because of the large number of Klan delegates. There was huge Klan parade associated with it.

http://en.wikipedia....onal_Convention

4) in 1928 there were 4,000,000 Klansmen in the US, and in Sept. of that year ~50,000 marched on Washington DC.

5) One prominent Klansman was Hugo Black, later appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He served until 1971.

Others who were at one time Klan members -

Pres. Harry S. Truman (D-MO) (1945-1953)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va). Served until 2010.

1928 KKK DC parade
kkk_dcmarch.jpg

#30 MorganX

MorganX

    MegaZilla™

  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 04
  • Location: Midwest USA
  • OS: Digita Storm Bolt, Windows 8.1 x64 Pro w/Media Center Pack, Server 2k12 - Core i7 3770K/16GB DDR3/OCZ Vector 256GB/Gigabyte GTX 760
  • Phone: HTC One 64GB

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:08

Other bits of history -

1) Klansmen were mostly Democrats, with Republicans mostly being the abolitionists against slavery.

2) the events around the (Virgil & Wyatt) Earp's Cochise County battles with Clanton gang (aka "Cowboys" because many of the 200-300 Cowboys were rustlers) was highly political, the Earp's being Republicans and the Clanton gang former Confederate Democrats. Some were Klansmen.

3) the 1924 Democrat Presidential Convention in New York City was known as the Klanbake because of the large number of Klan delegates. There was huge Klan parade associated with it.

http://en.wikipedia....onal_Convention

4) in 1928 there were 4,000,000 Klansmen in the US, and in Sept. of that year ~50,000 marched on Washington DC.

5) One prominent Klansman was Hugo Black, later appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Franklin Roosevelt. He served until 1971.

Others who were at one time Klan members -

Pres. Harry S. Truman (D-MO) (1945-1953)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va). Served until 2010.

1928 KKK DC parade
kkk_dcmarch.jpg

 

This is all true. I don't think the parties matter. They have switched many times. Democrats took knives and guns to congress to defend slavery. The parties have splintered several times. It can be traced, but no point. It's the people. Racism and hatred do not come from a party or affiliation, which is why the parties have split several times. Clearly today's republican party is not the same as Lincolns.

 

Really as it relates to this, the only parties that mattered were Union and Confederate. Many Union soldiers didn't really care for blacks. But they knew right from wrong.

 

And that's what it's all about, right vs. wrong. After we revisit America's history, which does help explain why society is the way it is today, we have to visit individuals. Regardless of how much more difficult things may be for minorities based on our history, it's clearly better and opportunity is present, there is no excuse for some of the "wrong" behavior from African Americans. Slaves had much more fortitude and backbone that say, today's punk ass gang bangers victimizing and poisoning their own neighborhoods.

 

Of course, it's meaningless to discuss these things here. Unfortunately, there is no "leader." We've become a melting pot of damaged people. If the Human Race lives long enough, race will not matter one day. But that's a long way away.

 

Edit: One note to keep this from becoming about race, it's actually about hatred. It was white Americans who fought to destroy the Klan at the height of its power. Many were killed and they endangered their lives and families. They had prominent and political positions and still did the right thing. Racism is just one of many vehicles for hatred.