I have the right to carry a KKK banner through West Baltimore. Who's with me?

[Comrade Grumpy]

Maybe I won't exercise that right.

[bravenak]

2. I'll wait right here to see who shows up to go with you.

I'm sure somebody will show up soon to protect the First Amendment and tell me i hate freedom since I think it's a rather dangerous idea and will probably get you beat up. And that the beat down would be fully deserved.

[steve2470]

5. [phone] nt

[clydefrand]

52. If you really carry a KKK banner,

I hope to hell they burn your ass

[steve2470]

65. hey good to see you, clyde!

You're one of my favorite DU'ers.

[linuxman]

85. Let me get this straight.

You think that someone deserves to receive physical violence for offending others? What other stances deserve beatings? Can I beat anyone I disagree with? Is there a list?

You can find something reprehensible. That doesn't give you the right to hurt the person offending you.

By your logic, the targets of yesterday's shooting fully deserved it too.

Horse shit.

[bravenak]

86. Look at how outraged you are.

[linuxman]

93. Look at how coolly you approve of hurting people you hate.

[bravenak]

94. Projecting. I find the Hate group KKK to be violent. They have MURDERED many black folks.

Going to tha area waving hate flags of white supremacy and murder is a threat in my opinion, a threat of death and destruction. And that is the intent. If they get their asses kicked, should I cry? Cry for th poor folks who continue the death to blacks cult? Nope. Won't care one bit.

[linuxman]

96. And until one of them (an individual) trys to harm someone, they've done nothing

that would merit violence. This is America. We don't beat people up because they hurt our feelings, insult us, or scare us.

There is a world of difference in not crying over them being hurt vs your tacit approval of hurting them which you posted about earlier.

Beat up/encourage beating whoever you like. I'll abstain, so long as I'm only facing words. Suit yourself.

[bravenak]

97. I never asked your permission. Or for you to join me in anything.

[linuxman]

98. What makes you think I'm offering you permission?

Anyone childish/violent enough to approve of hurting people who have only offended them isn't exactly the type of person to seek it anyway.

[bravenak]

99. You seem very upset.

[linuxman]

100. Nah, just annoyed.

Not nearly upset enough to start slugging people who I disagree with, anyway.

[bravenak]

101. You'll get over it.

[PeaceNikki]

3. And people might be SERIOUSLY OFFENDED if I walk into an abortion clinic.

Of if 2 gay men are walking down a street holding hands.

As such, we should accept that part of our decisions to do so means that we open ourselves up to violence and death. amiright??

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. You DO open yourself up to violence and death with the choices you make in life.

And you should recognize that we don't 'accept it' when we make it illegal. When people shoot up an Islamophobic convention, it's still illegal to do so, and we arrest them for doing so, even if they are deliberately taunting Muslims.

You have the choice to do or say anything you want. And other people will respond however they want to, whether or not you 'accept' it. If they respond in an illegal fashion, they'll be arrested.

[ieoeja]

70. I see lots of bad analogies today.

KKK tries to bully and ramp up hate against a minority who needs our protection.

Geller tries to bully and ramp up hate against a minority who needs our protection.

Two gay guys holding hands try to bully and ramp up hate against a minority who needs our protection.


One of these things is not like the other. One of these things doesn't belong. Can you tell which one?

[PeaceNikki]

71. Where?

The equivalency is that there are no non-violent offensive actions that justify a violent reaction. None.

Offensive actions are only offensive to people who find them offensive. We can expect people to sometimes be offended by our words or actions but, in a fucking SANE society, we should NEVER expect harm or death for non-violent expression.

Never. Not about religion, sexuality, choices, anything.

There are hoards of people who are SERIOUSLY OFFENDED if I walk into an abortion clinic. They consider it murder and my action an attack on their religion, beliefs and society.


There are hoards of people who are SERIOUSLY OFFENDED if 2 gay men walk down the street holding hands. They consider it horrific and the action an attack on their religion, beliefs and society.

The whole idea of it being "something you invite" is hogwash. These are grown sentient thinking human beings.

[treestar]

73. We might expect it

It is wrong, but people do things that are wrong.

If a woman leaves a batterer, he has no right to kill her, but wouldn't you advise caution? Statistics show that he's most likely to kill her at that point if he's going to. Taking precautions about that does not mean that he has a right to kill her. Even avoiding taunting him about it doesn't mean she's admitting he has a right to kill her. She's just trying to defuse a situation.

[ieoeja]

79. I'm not a pacifist. I call some Black man a "nigger", I think he has every right to ...

... break my fucking nose.

When the KKK tried burning a cross in front of my grandfather's home ... I guess we could stop at "try". Because my family sure as hell didn't stop them with a counter protest. We stopped them when they found themselves looking down the barrels of a half dozen firearms. And they made damned sure not to come back when my grandfather hunted several of them down and caught them alone without their hooded buddies.


Obviously, shooting people over a fucking cartoon is inexcusable. But neither is excusing the bullies. And in this instance the bullies were people in the United States making fun of Muslims. In the Middle East the bullies would be the Jihadis killing cartoonists.

Minority status changes the equation.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. the doctrine of "fighting words" is very limited.

However assault is not justified by "fighting words" unless it can be established that an apprehension of an immediate threat existed. More broadly a restriction on free speech based on limiting "fighting words" does exist, but since it was established in the 40's it has been narrowed and restricted by the courts. There is no way Geller's exhibition would qualify, and while the police might pick you up to protect you, they would not be constitutionally allowed to suppress your ridiculous exhibition.

[marym625]

92. +1000

As much as I hate, hate, I believe to have the freedom of speech we should, you can't pick and choose what is free.

Look at Hustler. I honestly believe that people are truly offended to the core by what they print. Both the articles and the pictures. But it isn't for the offended to choose what is allowed to be printed

I may not agree with what you say, but I will depend to the death your right to say it

[treestar]

72. I don't think there's a real issue here and all are in agreement

We have the right to do these things. In some circumstances we refrain. Not because the offended have any right to harm us. But because people do wrong things at times and that cannot be guaranteed not to happen. You can't be un-killed because they are wrong. They can be arrested and convicted, or killed, but that does not bring you back. People are not only not perfect, they can be downright wrong at times. They can be violent for all kinds of reasons.

Thus in these days and times, we have an awareness about some people getting so freaked out by pictures of Mohamed that they will kill you. And making those pictures gains practically nothing for the maker of the pictures. Nothing other than offending someone else.

[steve2470]

4. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=432&invol=43

You do indeed.

You have the right. It might not be a wise move, but, hey, you got the right.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

46. Excellent point. nt

[elleng]

47. Exactly.

A friend of mine, attorney with ACLU at the time, represented KKK in that case. (Incidentally, he's Jewish.)

[AngryAmish]

76. Splitting the finest of hairs, it was the Nazis, not the KKK.

[elleng]

78. Ah yes, finely and correctly split.

[merrily]

104. Constitutionally that is a distinction without a difference.

It's been said over and over that government cannot discriminate based on the content or nature of the speech. So, if Nazis got a permit to march for Constitutional reasons, the town could not deny one to the KKK--or to Black Muslims.

[merrily]

105. I cannot help but wonder if today's SCOTUS would overrule that case,

either expressly or implicitly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Read post number 4, he beat me to it

Now having the good sense not to do it... is another thing.

[elleng]

48. Right, we have lots of 'rights.'

Knowing which to exercise, how and when, requires using common sense.

It's a FREE COUNTRY, we kids used to say, on the playground in Brooklyn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Actually what is hysterical is when people post OPs like this

going over a theoretical thing... which is a right, implied and all, but they miss the actual attacks under way on those rights, that might make this KKK thing and going down to Baltimore a nice memory

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026618613

Yup, speech and assembly are under attack, but not that you would know it from national media. There is one thing I have noticed over the last few years... news tends to disappear once it crosses the grand ol' Miss.

[Eleanors38]

7. You have the right, but I sure won't be with you.

[G_j]

8. Just remember

when your ass gets kicked, it's not your fault.

[PeaceNikki]

9. Nobody here will be "with you" because we don't agree with the message. Just like we weren't "with"

Geller.

[beam me up scottie]

89. +1

It's possible to agree that you shouldn't get blown away for hate speech without agreeing with that hate speech.

[Siwsan]

10. My philosophy is, along with my rights goes a whole lot of responsibility

I have a whole lot of things I am allowed to do but I also have to measure the impact on innocent others - is it positive or negative.

Had a bomb gone off, or a fire fight broken off at that "contest", how many totally innocent by-passers might have been injured or killed?

Double edged swords are always dangerous.

[HappyMe]

11. Let me know where I should send

the get well card and accompanying houseplant.

[jberryhill]

12. Officer John McLane

[DashOneBravo]

13. Just because you can. Doesn't mean that you should

[lapislzi]

66. Why? Why shouldn't one?

I mean, I know why I *wouldn't* carry a KKK banner under any circumstances, but make no mistake: it isn't because I'd be afraid of getting killed or harmed. That should not factor into the equation.

But...you tell me. Why SHOULDN'T I carry a KKK (or other revolting) banner other than because I thoroughly detest its ideology?

Full disclosure: I don't find the mockery of religion revolting or even offensive. I do find it necessary.

Edit: spelling derpness.

[DashOneBravo]

83. It was a response to the OP.

You have the right for free speech and if you did what the OP suggested. I'd say you are the one who's probably going to get an ass whipping.

I don't have a problem with people mocking religion. It seems as though the Garland group had a solid security plan and was prepared. Two assholes died and never breached the outer perimeter.

Free speech is great but you should always be prepared for the worst.

[Throd]

14. I support your right to do that but I won't be joining you.

[SidDithers]

15. Well, I'm not a racist...

So, no, I won't be joining you.

Sid

[steve2470]

27. + a googol nt

[snooper2]

16. not my cup of tea, but how about atheists protesting a church?

[FLPanhandle]

17. Would you carry a Rainbow banner through a bible belt town?

I guess you wouldn't exercise that right either.

[Scootaloo]

80. You just equated gay people to the Klan

I'm pretty sure it was unintentional, but... Maybe think a little harder next time you make a comparison.

[Hoyt]

18. That's the problem with a lot of rights. Just because you have them, doesn't mean one should

exercise them. Gun lovers use that thinking all the time, as do those who like confederate and nazi flags.

[Throd]

19. I fail to see a problem. Interesting that you do.

[Hoyt]

21. Let's try it this way. Zimmerman supposedly had a right to carry a gun, but it didn't work out well.

Racists, have a right to fly a confederate flag off their front porch and parade around town, but it's an affront to a lot of decent people.

Rights don't mean one is required to prove to the world they are a hater and Ahole.

[Throd]

25. You don't have the right to not be offended by the speech of others.

[Ed Suspicious]

28. No but he has every right to call the inappropriate exercise of rights idiotic.

[Throd]

29. Yes he does. I fully support his right to do that.

[Codeine]

22. So you have the right to free speech

as long you're not dumb enough to actually try it?

[Hoyt]

24. I think you are being obtuse. Just because one can be an ignorant racist, doesn't mean they ought to

A Constitution right, doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

[Throd]

26. They get to be whether you like it or not. Should they do it is irrelevant.

[Hoyt]

33. I can state my opinion, and never said they can't. Glad to see folks fighting for racists, gun nuts

and such. We certainly need more of them. [Do I need a sarcasm thingy]

[beevul]

51. Nobody in this thread is "fighting for racists, gun nuts and such."

Fighting for rights on the other hand, I have seen many do. They do belong to everyone you know, not just "racists, gun nuts and such".

"Popular" speech never needs protecting in the first place, Hoyt.

[Hoyt]

61. You too don't get it. OP, like me, said you have the right, but why exercise an immoral right

like parading around with a racist flag and a gun on your hip. No one says you don't have the right, but you ought to be more careful what kind of rights you choose to exercise. But then, you carry gunz everywhere you go, so you are biased.

[Throd]

63. Other people have a different definition of 'immoral" than you do.

Put away that rainbow flag. You might offend someone.

[Hoyt]

64. I find racism immoral, how about you?

[beevul]

67. How many times have I told you over the years Hoyt?

I don't carry a gun.


It seems you're the one that's biased.

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. Same with building a mosque in the shadow of "Ground Zero"?

[Hoyt]

62. It's their right. If it were me, I'd probably build it somewhere else, but they have that right.

And if they do build it there, people ought to keep their bigoted mouths shut. But, they have the right to shout all kinds of bigoted crud, and elect officials most likely to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis and such.

People have the right to walk around with a confederate flag. In the unlikely event I ever get Alzheimer and grab one thinking it's a pretty diaper, I hope someone knocks me on my rear because I deserve it.

[NutmegYankee]

20. I'm disapointed you would perpetuate the myth that POC are violent.

I think they would respond like everyone else to such a display - with lots of opposing speech and peaceful counter protest. They are far better people than the neo-nazi scumbags.

[n2doc]

31. +1000 n/t

[BrotherIvan]

40. I like it

Well said

[cwydro]

43. yup

[steve2470]

49. "They are far better people than the neo-nazi scumbags", nailed it nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Well there is that

but he has an absolute right to do that.

I would not do it, but I know and understand this would be hurtful.

In the meantime actual rights of assembly and speech are under actual attack, like for real, like for shit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026618613

I am, always amused by this... it is actually very funny in a cynical way.

[treestar]

74. Clearly wasn't the intent

Gotchas like this are deliberately to miss the point. No people is so nonviolent that there isn't somebody who might attack over a direct insult like that. Yes, there would be those peaceful protests too.

In fact there was posted a Muslim peaceful demonstration. We were condemning the screaming tea baggers who went there to call them names. Nobody got killed. But they could have.

[cwydro]

23. The KKK came to Key West one day

some years ago.

No one shot anyone. We laughed at them.

I actually felt sorry for them by the end of the rally.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Similar Experience In Our Small Town

The American Nazis came to town. Some idiot that is at the top of their stupid pyramid came fishing in the river and must have stopped at one of the local watering places where the morons hang out.

He thought the town was ripe for them and would be welcome.

A large group of locals formed a parade that simply walked an oval back and forth across the crosswalk at the busiest intersection in town, right in front of where the cops had the street blocked to prevent trouble.

People driving by couldn't see them, couldn't hear them, and strangers might not even have know they were there.

Totally peaceful. Totally righteous!

[cwydro]

34. We all turned out for it.

As much as you can get Key Westers to turn out for anything lol.

It was really kind of sad.

I wonder how many of them ended up in the gay bars that night? I think they thought we were a different species.

Perhaps we were.

[MineralMan]

30. Why would you want to, and why that?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. This is no doubt a response thread to some other thread.

Possibly the dumb one equating a woman who had acid thrown on her for her beliefs or actions to a woman who runs an Islamophobic hate group who goes around deliberately trying to piss people off.

[GummyBearz]

68. Yea, its kind of like voting for Hillary. We all have the right to do so, but...

...but anyone with a brain would choose not to.

[MineralMan]

81. Non-sequitur of the day.

Did I mention Hillary Clinton?

[GummyBearz]

82. No that was me

As an example of things we have a right to do, but shouldn't. It fits the situation described in this OP.

[BlueJazz]

35. I'll go with you if the price is right.

(it's close to the number of Sub-Atomic Particles in the Universe.

[oberliner]

38. Do you think drawing an image of the prophet is akin to carrying a KKK banner?

Would you put those acts in a similar category?

[LanternWaste]

41. Yes. That category being called 'speech.'

"Would you put those acts in a similar category?"

Yes. That category being called 'speech.'

[oberliner]

42. In that sense, yes

But I think a KKK banner is hateful in a way that a cartoon image of the prophet is not.

I support folks who want to make fun of the silliness of religions.

I don't support folks who want to advocate violence against people based on their race or religion.

[LanternWaste]

77. Speech is the only relevant "sense", all else are merely distinctions without a difference.

Speech is the only relevant "sense", all else are merely distinctions without a difference.

[treestar]

75. Are we not always told people get to decide what is offensive to them?

Why are the Muslims any different? At least, as far as the ones who are merely offended but don't do anything violent about it.

[joeybee12]

39. KNR...Geller's event was never about free speech...

It was about provocation first, and it was bout hoping something would happen so she could paint all Muslims with her very broad hate-filled brush.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. It's not been uncommon in my life for people like me to be targeted by hateful pickets, screaming

preachers, swarms of hyper religious bigots. They have that right, as Westboro Baptist demonstrated very clearly. And they most certainly took their banners of hate directly to the neighborhoods and even funerals of the minority group they harassed. I do not recall mass response from the straight community against them, nor from the faith community. No one said Phelps should expect to take a bullet if he kept it up. Why not? Because Fred has the right to be an asshole, just like Geller.

[Lee-Lee]

53. As a deputy I had to provide security for a Klan rally

I despised them and everything they stand for and had to say.

But, this is a country where they are free to say it, and as such had every bit as much right to rally in that spot as anyone else who gets a permit.

As much as I despised them, the principle of respect for free speech and rule of law is more important, and I would have stopped anyone attempting violence toward them.

[MellowDem]

54. What disgusting victim blaming bullshit...

Geller's group didn't walk through a Muslim neighborhood with pictures of Muhamed, but even if they did, they shouldn't be shot for it.

I see the exact same reasoning used to blame victims of rape...

[Logical]

55. So if they killed you you would think it was a valid response? nt

[SidDithers]

91. /thread...nt

Sid

[A-Schwarzenegger]

56. I'm confused.

Are you with the terrorists or against them?

[mercuryblues]

58. an old I rish proverb

Many times a man's mouth broke his nose.

[Arugula Latte]

59. Yes you do have the right.

And people also have the right to ridicule and criticize religion.

Fuck Religion. It's Stupid.

There.

[brooklynite]

60. But I'll defend to the death your right to...

[theboss]

69. I'm not marching under a KKK banner

But if you need help filling out the appropriate permits for a rally, I can give some advice.

[linuxman]

84. I support your right to do so.

Though I don't agree with your message.

[X_Digger]

87. I will support your right to do so.

Is it such a hard concept to understand?

Principles are principles. You don't vary them based on who they're applied to.

[Yorktown]

90. Bruce Willis did exactly that in Die Hard 3

Except that it ended well for three reasons:

1- Willis was the hero, so couldn't die (yipiyayay)
2- in the scenario, it was about a lost bet (i.e., no intent to do it)
3- the scene was shot in Harlem, but the sign said 'everybody', not the 'N' that was later photoshopped.

Don't try it yourself. Unadvisable for a lot of reasons.

[Quayblue]

95. Oooh snap!

[CBGLuthier]

102. Your analogy is quite broken

A more apt one might be to have an exhibit of offensive caricatures of african americans inside a building.

I doubt that anyone would bring a gun. You might get some protests.

your analogy is poor and more than a bit racist.

BTW, my analogy already happens. Go to New Orleans some time and look at the nasty caricature shit they still openly sell. Yet no one gets shot over it. What could the difference be?

[Jamaal510]

103. What a strange suggestion. eom