25 Indicted for posts on far-right Stormfront website

[Sunlei]

Accused of racial hated, threats

(ANSA) - Rome, July 20 - A preliminary hearing judge in Rome on Monday indicted 25 people for alleged writing posts on far-right Stormfront website. They are accused of racial hatred, threats, and violation of Mancino law. That 2013 law prosecutes racism, hate crimes, discrimination and instigation to commit acts inspired by Nazi ideology. Prosecutors said the defendants published in the Italian section of the Stormfront Internet site posts against immigrants, Jews, politicians and public officials.

http://www.ansa.it/english/news/2015/07/20/25-indicted-for-posts-on-far-right-stormfront-website-2_ddf57d15-53f1-412e-9374-26030fbf4d66.html

[world wide wally]

1. Just out of curiosity, was Trump's name on that list?

[Still In Wisconsin]

16. If it was, you can bet that Walker's and Christie's names will be on there tomorrow.

'Cause, you know, they're trying to be just like The Donald.

[Fred Sanders]

2. A sensible hate crime law that purposely, clearly and enforceably defines and restricts violent hate speech, as most modern nations do.

Nations with free speech laws that do not restrict hate speech and categorize such speech as a crime face the omnipresent danger of a charismatic national figure using hate speech freely and without criticism by a controlled media to potentially obtain absolute power.

[House of Roberts]

3. You mean like Silvio Berlusconi?

He controls a lot of media in Italy, no?

[NutmegYankee]

4. So what you're saying is you oppose the First Amendment?

[Fred Sanders]

6. I said what I said. Hate crime laws are restrictions on free speech freely chosen by the freely elected

governments of every Western democracy but one.

What I am saying is America has not chosen wisely.

Even now paying the price for that bit of dumb.

[NutmegYankee]

8. This is because you foolishly believe you will always be on the winning side.

What if we lose and laws forbid us to discuss "climate change" or the NRA forced a law declaring anti-gun speech as hate speech?
Or people espousing atheism are considered anti-Christian hate groups.

On the contrary, I think "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" was very wise.

[NuclearDem]

9. Do you actually know what hate speech laws prohibit?

[NutmegYankee]

11. Typically religious or racial bigotry.

But once you open that door, you can never close it again.

[NuclearDem]

13. Yet, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK aren't Orwellian totalitarian hellholes.

Most of the Western world is grown up enough to figure this out.

[NutmegYankee]

15. you are free to leave at any time.

I'll keep my oath to uphold the Constitution. I'm also a card carrying member of the ACLU. You will not change my opinion. I work to fight off people who want to restrict speech.

[NuclearDem]

21. "Uphold the Constitution" doesn't mean keep it as it was in the 18th century.

There are completely legitimate restrictions on speech. One can't incite a riot, knowingly slander, create and disseminate child pornography, and we could frankly do nicely with a law restricting campaign donations.

[NutmegYankee]

56. What you mention are intentional acts, not speech.

Incitement is an act. Slander isn't just saying something false, it's intentionally doing so to harm another person's career, and is an act one can sue for in a civil suit. It is offensive to even associate child pornography as speech - it's an illegal sex act on children who cannot consent that is then smuggled from person to person. Frankly, to make such a comparison you probably don't belong on DU.

[NuclearDem]

63. You need to brush up on your constitutional history.

Pornography--including child pornography--has always been a First Amendment issue. Obscenity laws are generally constitutional, and child pornography has been explicitly categorized as non-protected speech--that's Ferber v New York.

Speech that provokes imminent lawless action--such as incitement to riot--is a First Amendment issue, and under Brandenburg, is not protected speech.

Slander and libel are not protected when the person making the claim knows the information is false, and if the claim is something that a reasonable person could believe is true.

[NutmegYankee]

64. You just reiterated my previous comments.

[NuclearDem]

65. Except for the part about child pornography being a speech issue

And incitement to riot being a speech issue.

[NutmegYankee]

66. The court held that child pornography was the intrinisic outcome of an illegal act (sexual abuse).

And therefore was exempt from the Obscenity test given to other materials via previous rulings.

[GGJohn]

17. And we ain't any of those countries.

If you are so enamored with those country's laws, you're more than free to move to one of your choice, meanwhile, we'll keep our 1A intact as it is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. How about Malaysia?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/30/1416853/-Malaysia-bans-the-color-yellow

[dumbcat]

22. Pretty much anything they want

if there is no 1st amendment to prevent it.

Imagine, in a GOP controlled admin, the "freely elected" could pass and sign legislation restricting anti-gun speech, atheist speech, even speech espousing freedom of choice as hate speech. You sure you want to give the "freely elected" that power?

[NuclearDem]

24. Are guns members of a sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or nationality?

For context, samesex marriage has been legalized, and yet I still can't marry my dog.

[dumbcat]

27. No, so what?

I wasn't talking about any particular existing law, but what could happen without a 1st amend.

[NuclearDem]

32. We already have restrictions on speech coexisting with the First Amendment.

This isn't a black-or-white, First Amendment or no First Amendment issue.

[cleanhippie]

40. "samesex marriage has been legalized, and yet I still can't marry my dog."

Thats because marrying your dog is not 'samesex' or equal marriage.


Rick Santorum, is that you?

[NuclearDem]

55. It was an awkwardly worded comment about slippery slope fallacies.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:24 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Are guns members of a sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, or nationality?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7126238

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"samesex marriage has been legalized, and yet I still can't marry my dog"

What the fuck? Why is anyone that would compare equal marriage to marrying your dog allowed on this website? Not only is such a statement highly offense, hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top, it's bigotry like this taht makes DU suck more.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:41 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: and I can't marry this delicious salad I'm eating right now.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ok, I had to read the thread and then try to puzzle this out. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here as this is DU so the presumption is that nothing Santorum like was meant. But is that the case? It might have been inartful, and evidently confusing because it got alerted on, but I'm going to assume that the poster was including "and yet I still can't marry my dog" as a mockery of far-fetched Republican fears. So I take it in its entirety as meaning, "We're capable of constructing sensible laws against hate speech. It's mimicking Republican objections to recognizing same sex marriage as opening the door to bizarre behavior, to say that bizarre interpretations will come from sensible limitations on hate speech."
It would be great to hear from the poster that this is the case, more or less. Imo, it probably is, so I have to vote to leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster is apparently trying to make the case that hate speech laws won't prohibit controversial speech, just as legalization of same-sex marriage doesn't allow the "man-on-dog" marriages that inhabit Rick Santorum's nightmares. Awkwardly done, but not worthy of a hide. The alerter appears to have had a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of bestiality, but there's no indication the poster wrote that with hurtful intent. Given the alerter's comments, I'm guessing the sarcasm tag wouldn't have helped in this case. Sometimes it's best to just step away from the keyboard...which I'm doing now.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is saying how bad the post was
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Is this an attempt at humor? That was a fail. Try harder or don't try at all.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I rarely vote to Hide but this is one of those times. Boy that was ugly!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

51. Are you and your dog the same sex?

[Oneironaut]

85. Easy. Make Christians a "protected" group. Prosecute anyone who uses "hate speech" against them.

The far right already says that Christians are a minority that is under attack. It's not far fetched that they would classify Christians as a protected group, and any criticism hate speech.

[NuclearDem]

92. Countries with hate speech laws deal with cases like those as a matter of course.

And you know what they do with them?

Throw them out, because they know the difference between hate speech and hurt feelings.

[Sunlei]

33. police don't seem to pay attention to 'freedom of speech' when they bust out on 'mouthy' people.

[L0oniX]

38. -

[Sunlei]

23. Canada seems to have done better on several citizens 'basic rights' For example,

health care for all and they didn't allow the 'for profit' prisons. Canada didn't allow local police forces to start to create millions of violations just in poorer areas & lock-up millions of their own citizens.

Canada allowed a couple 'for profit' prisons to start a decade ago? and closed them. Unconstitutional if I remember.

[GGJohn]

26. That doesn't change the fact that he, as a Canadian citizen,

has no say in our BoR.

[Sunlei]

29. Sure he can comment and have a say. I think the USA can use some help from Canada on how to

treat basic citizens.

[GGJohn]

31. He can comment all he wants,

but he still has no say in our BoR.
His idea of restricting our 1A goes against everything this country stands for and most Americans won't stand for those restrictions.

[Sunlei]

35. this is kind of weird but even the stormfront website restricts the use of word nigger

I think they don't even allow the nazi symbols but they still fly their racist pride southern flag.

[Lancero]

50. Results, 2-5 leave

On Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:39 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

He can comment all he wants,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7126304

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Here at DU, we don't attack folks over their country of residence.

We get quite enough of that sort of bullshit from TRUMP.

Doubling down here in this post, but at DU, we all have a say.

Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:54 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I actually detest most of the thing a this poster utters, but there's nothing wrong with what he wrote.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: blatant xenophobia
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster gave him a hard time about his Canadian citizenship in his other hidden post, but did not do it here. He is factually correct that foreign citizens do not have a vote. This alert is just piling on. Censorship sucks.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And GGJohn agrees with you, if you bothered to read his post - Here at DU "he can comment all he wants".

Anyway, still having issues seeing the personal attack in this post.


Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The other hidden post attacks his country of residence. This one does not but does point out accurately that he can comment. This poster is now on time out.

[merrily]

43. Jury results. 4 to 3 to LEAVE IT.

That doesn't change the fact that he, as a Canadian citizen,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7126273

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Here at DU, we don't attack folks over their country of residence.

We get quite enough of that sort of bullshit from TRUMP.

Please hide.



Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I ONLY SAID LEAV IT ALONE, BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A BoR is.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster is NOT attacking Canadians.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post is disruptive, over-the-top.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

44. Excuse, me. What is a BoR? thx! n/t

[Babel_17]

47. Bill of Rights, I think (nt)

[merrily]

49. Given the context, the the poster seems to mean that Canadians get no vote on our Bill of Rights.

An accurate statement that apparently deserves a hide on DU these days.

[merrily]

52. Was that 3 or 4 alerts because you had the "nerve" to post that a Canadian

does not get a vote on the Bill of Rights?

Looks as though someone lost it.

[kcr]

79. Well it's a good thing he posted it, because no one realized that before.

That was really informative.

[merrily]

82. I wonder how he knew, then?

I can see posters from around the world popping in now and again, but I find it interesting when posters from other countries post very frequently about politicians for whom they can't vote. And, post more conservatively than most in their own country, to boot.

[L0oniX]

37. Yes ...Hitler has a right to free speech.

[NutmegYankee]

57. Godwin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[L0oniX]

59. -

[NutmegYankee]

60. .

Derp.

[L0oniX]

61. Sorry you missed it. Hilter would have the right to free speech in this country.

Do you disagree or is it too hard for you to understand?

[branford]

91. Read National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977),

the ACLU's defense of the right of Nazi's to march in Skokie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

The solution to bad speech is more speech, not criminalization of unpopular ideas.

[merrily]

67. Psst. Godwin's Law was something made up to see how fast it would spread.

It's not really a law.

[NutmegYankee]

68. I know it's not a "law".

It is an amusing thing to observe though.

I think I'm shocked people here don't remember the early years of this website. We were in constant fear the RW was going to start passing laws against us. I guess that was the era of Phil Gramm's "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." Now the RW is even more insane and nefarious. Once we weaken a civil liberty, who knows where it can go.

[merrily]

69. I find citing of Godwin's law, as thought it means something, potentially dangerous.

Once we weaken a civil liberty, who knows where it can go.

Offhand, I cannot think of a single right in the bill of rights that has not been limited by the SCOTUS including the right to freedom of speech.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7126734

[NutmegYankee]

71. The Supreme Court has often been deferential to police to the point of ridiculousness.

There are many findings that civil libertarians disagree with - The 4th has probably suffered the most.

[merrily]

73. I disagree with some of the First Amendment decisions of the SCOTUS. However, the rights do

not disappear when some limits are put on them, even if you or I disagree with some of the specific limits.

[NutmegYankee]

75. They just get weaker until they protect almost nothing.

Like the 4th...

[merrily]

76. The 4th has scared the crap out of judges since 9-11.

They don't want to overrule government when government claims a danger to life and limb.

The very first case on religious freedom carved out bigamy as an exception. Freedom of religion still survives.

[NutmegYankee]

74. Here is an example of the danger:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/08/30/black-lives-matter-chant-called-disgusting-by-police-leader/

I can easily see police using a hate law to attack the protesters.

[merrily]

77. My post referred to the danger of citing Godwin's law as though it were meaningful.

Is your reply somehow related to that?

I can easily see police using a hate law to attack the protesters.

I've never heard of a hate speech law that authorizes police attacks.

[NutmegYankee]

78. I was reiterating my point about allowing regulation of speech.

Police could use such a law to arrest protesters under their (police) definition of "threatening speech"

By attack I mean arrest/detain/harass.

[GGJohn]

10. So basically, you would gut the 1A?

Well my answer to you is a resounding NO!!!!!

[Nye Bevan]

18. Yep. If only Germany had not had the First Amendment in the 1930s,

Hitler would probably never have risen to power.

[Sunlei]

36. If only the world bank didn't hand over the banks of the first 2 countries hitler invaded..he would

have been as broke as Detroit or Harrisburg.

[merrily]

53. Germany had the First Amendment in the 1930s? Who knew?

[branford]

19. Yet, to quote to Tom Wolf,

"the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."

Moreover, even though most of Europe criminalizes speech such as that supporting Nazi ideologies, the laws haven't really stopped such beliefs from spreading in those countries. In fact, both the European parliament and various national legislatures have actually elected neo-Nazis and other open and avowed violent bigots from the left and right that make the worst Republicans look downright progressive and cuddly.

Our strong and open free speech laws and jurisprudence were largely championed by liberals, often to protect left-wing groups such as communists and socialists from government discrimination and institutional hatred. Never forget that once you allow the government to outlaw "hate speech," when an administration is elected that you don't agree with, which inevitably happens in the course of history, the definition of "hate speech" can readily and easily be changed to target you and the ideas you hold sacred. Out founders were wise when they acknowledged that the best antidote to "bad" speech is more speech, not the jackboot of government.

Regardless, the tenets of the First Amendment and the American broad interpretation of free speech protections are widely and strongly supported across the political spectrum, and will not change any time soon.

I would note that in the event of a "charismatic national figure using hate speech freely and without criticism by a controlled media to potentially obtain absolute power," you can at least rest easier knowing that America also has the Second Amendment and therefore the means for legitimate armed defense or rebellion against tyrannical government. Those founders sure were smart...

[Oilwellian]

30. The founders weren't smart...

if they created our government and wrote an Amendment to the Constitution allowing its citizens to violently overthrow the same government they just created. Duh. That is a predominant right wing gun nut meme. Fortunately they were smart enough to realize armed rebellions were a threat to our newly formed government and that is why they wrote the Second Amendment as a means to protect it. One need only study the Whiskey Rebellion to learn that George Washington used the Second Amendment as a means to squash an armed rebellion. I believe you have the original intent of the Second Amendment, backwards.

There are already laws on the books that prevent citizens from threatening to do bodily harm to other citizens. Using the First Amendment as a means to allow anyone to threaten the lives of your loved ones, is absurd on its face.

[merrily]

45. I don't think anyone on DU would characterize me as a gun nut.

Do you think the Framers were unaware, when they wrote the First Amendment that the colonial government had just been overthrown for what they deemed good reasons?

That pamphlets and broadsides had urged that overthrow? The First Amendment was written with people like Peter Zenger and Thomas Paine very much in mind.

[Oilwellian]

87. The poster I responded to referred to the Second Amendment

and the right wing meme that states the Second Amendment allows armed insurrection against our own government. Nothing could be further from the truth as to why our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, and the Whiskey Rebellion is a classic example of how the Second Amendment was used to end an armed rebellion.

I'm not sure why you jumped to the Revolutionary War and our overthrowing British control of this country. That was an entirely different situation than the elected government we have today. Our founding fathers didn't legalize our right for armed insurrection against the government they had just painstakingly formed. Instead they wrote safeguards into our Constitution that allows us to peacefully vote out any government that doesn't serve our best interest.

Exclusive: A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public that could fight its own government. The truth is that George Washington looked to citizens militias to put down revolts and maintain order, says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Right-wing resistance to meaningful gun control is driven, in part, by a false notion that America’s Founders adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could battle the U.S. government. The opposite is the truth, but many Americans seem to have embraced this absurd, anti-historical narrative.

The reality was that the Framers wrote the Constitution and added the Second Amendment with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. The key Framers, after all, were mostly men of means with a huge stake in an orderly society, the likes of George Washington and James Madison.

The men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 weren’t precursors to France’s Robespierre or Russia’s Leon Trotsky, believers in perpetual revolutions. In fact, their work on the Constitution was influenced by the experience of Shays’ Rebellion in western Massachusetts in 1786, a populist uprising that the weak federal government, under the Articles of Confederation, lacked an army to defeat.

Daniel Shays, the leader of the revolt, was a former Continental Army captain who joined with other veterans and farmers to take up arms against the government for failing to address their economic grievances.

Consortium News

[Aerows]

5. The influx of refugees arriving in both Italy and Greece

are taking a toll on the available resources. I suspect they are trying to keep a lid on race riots as best they can.

It's a precarious situation, and the last thing you need is a racist butt head fanning the flames.

[XemaSab]

7. For the people questioning whether there should be limits on free speech:

With the exception of child pornography, which websites do you think it should be illegal to access in the US?

Stormfront?
InfoWars?
No Greater Joy?
Council of Conservative Citizens?
FReepers?
Fox News?
ISIS?
"God Hates Fags?"
FLDS?
American Renaissance?
Generations with Vision?
David Duke?
Prison Planet?
Nation of Islam?
Likud?
League of the South?

Really, tell me more about which ideas are too problematic for people to consider?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

41. I'm glad I read your post twice.

I thought at first that you were advocating censorship. Then I reread it.

I'm still on my first cup of coffee.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

48. You forgot DU! Some would make the site illegal if they could.

[merrily]

54. There are lots of limits. The SCOTUS sometimes refers to them as "unprotected speech."

And sometimes it holds that the government interest in regulating speech outweighs the free speech interest in no regulation.

It can get very subjective sometimes.

[Initech]

20. I think the FBI puts you in a special file just for Googling Stormfront.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. I believe the Mancino Law was actually put into effect in 1993

My husband's uncle - then a Senator - voted in favor of it.

Since then it has been watered down (the 2013 law) is considered to be less effective - even though it's chief objective was to add protection against homophobia and transphobia.

I find it surprising that anyone got indicted - everyone knows the skinheads and neo Nazis are running rampant and getting away with all kinds of bullshit in Italy. Like - there are certain parts of Genoa my older sister in law won't go anywhere near.

I digress . . . You have to look at the 'climate' in Western Europe in the early 1990's and what Mitterand did in France to get why these kinds of laws were enacted in other countries as well. J'accuse.

[Jake Stern]

34. I support our 1st Amendment 100%

and hope it's never taken away. On the other hand it's quite easy to understand European laws against hate speech.

Despite our bitching about Raygun and Dubya, the US has never been under a truly repressive, totalitarian right wing government like Spain, Germany and Italy have.

We see unfettered free speech as a weapon against tyranny while Europeans view it as an avenue for extremists to disseminate their message.

[Nye Bevan]

39. March 7, 1934: Mock Trial of Hitler at Madison Square Garden

On March 5, 1934, William Dodd, the US Ambassador to Berlin, was summoned to the office of German Foreign Minister Neurath, who angrily demanded that he do something to halt a mock trial of Hitler set to take place two day later in New York's Madison Square Garden. The trial was organized by the American Jewish Congress, with support from the American Federation of Labor and a couple of dozen other Jewish and anti-Nazi organizations. The plan so outraged Hitler that he ordered Neurath and his diplomats in Berlin and Washington to stop it.

......

On March 1, 1934, the German embassy's number two man, Rudolf Leitner, met with a State Department official named John Hickerson and urged him to "do something to prevent this trial because of its lamentable effect on German public opinion if it should take place". Hickerson replied that owing to "our constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression" the federal government could do nothing to stop it. Leitner found this difficult to fathom. He told Hickerson "that if the circumstances were reversed the German Government would certainly find a way of stopping such a proceeding".

From "In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin".

http://www.amazon.com/In-Garden-Beasts-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347744064&sr=8-1&keywords=in+the+garden+of+beasts

[malaise]

46. This is great news

We should call it the Dylann Roof afterthought

[TeddyR]

58. For a second I thought that some crackpot US district attorney

Indicted someone for hate speech, but realized that couldn't be the case since the First Amendment protects free speech.

[Jamastiene]

62. I should have known that would never happen in America.

When I read the headline, I wondered how that was even possible, then saw it was not in America. Hell, in America, they can go out and bomb a federal building and the Olypmics and gay bars, shoot doctors, go on mass killing sprees, and anything else they want to do to express their hatred. They rarely ever get stopped. They can just do it and that's that. We are used to it now. I guess making them not bomb or shoot people they hate would infringe on their precious 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

[NuclearDem]

70. But McVeigh and Rudolph were stopped.

[Jamastiene]

83. Stopped would mean not allowed to bomb people.

They were not stopped. McVeigh and Rudolph were not stopped. Ask the family members of the 160+ people McVeigh killed or the nurse that was blinded or the security guard who was killed when Rudolph bombed that medical clinic if they were "stopped." I doubt the families of their victims or the victims that lived but are maimed for life feel they were "stopped."

The SPLC and law enforcement, including the ATF and FBI, have been monitoring these hate groups and individuals on the outskirts of these hate groups for ages now. They know which ones are dangerous long before they commit these bombings and shootings and other violent crimes in a lot of cases, but they do nothing, because of free speech.

People like McVeigh and Rudolph did massive damage all in the name of free speech. If law enforcement knows ahead of time that these people are planning to do these things, they should be able to stop them BEFORE they bomb and shoot and kill people.

It is a fine line. Sure, people should be allowed to say what they think, even if it is horrid, but it is a situation where one country is prosecuting people for what they say and another country, America, that lets shootings and bombings count as free speech, essentially, because so many actions count as free speech, including and up to breaking laws in the name of whatever their particular hatred is. There needs to be a balance, but there is not.

[NuclearDem]

84. It's not that simple with McVeigh.

After the bombing, nobody had the first clue who had actually carried it out. The FBI had considered Islamic terrorists the most likely, then narcoterrorists, and then Patriot/Militia terrorists. It was dumb luck that McVeigh ended up getting himself arrested; otherwise, the FBI may not have found him for years.

Sure, the SPLC and federal agencies had been watching the Patriot/Militia types, but after they hadn't expected anything like that. The Aryan Nations was crippled, nearly all the members of the Order were in prison or dead, the CSA had disbanded, and Elohim City had been quiet since the late 80s.

The ATF and FBI screwed themselves with Ruby Ridge and Waco, and they simply didn't have the motivation or resources to more thoroughly investigate the far right at the time.

[Jamastiene]

88. They might say that, but these groups are always reforming and regrouping.

They know that. They should be smart enough to know they are never going to be completely bankrupted, because they always regroup. They always have.

McVeigh was arrested less than 2 hours after bombing the federal building. Granted, he was arrested on different charges, but the charges he was arrested on were again related to illegal firearms and not having plates on his car, both things that they use as an excuse for "freedom of speech" and "second amendment" rights. He was in jail when they found out it was him. I don't remember it being very long at all before they IDed him as the bomber. They had video of him at Waco very quickly after the OKC bombing from what I remember. So, they knew he was part of those movements and ran in those circles. They could have watched him after Waco, because so many of that bunch got so pissed off over Waco. If we had even moderate laws on the books regarding these hate groups and militia groups, a lot of this bombing and shooting could be avoided. It's one thing to post on a hate site. It is an entirely different thing that happens in America under the guise of the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. America is too lenient with regards to these militias and hate groups while other countries go after people for just what they say.

Why does it always have to be all the way one way or the other? My complaint is that American laws are too lenient on right wing hate groups. The 1st Amendment covers a lot, but I don't think it should be covering people like Koresh who had sex with his 13 year old sister in law and escalated the entire Waco standoff by refusing to follow what laws we do have. Our government gives those groups far too much leeway when they are openly defying the law. Why do those groups need to stockpile so many guns and so much ammo? This is far beyond the realm of a hunting rifle for hunting and/or target shooting.

Is there no middle ground, common sense approach to hate groups? Sure, let them say whatever they want, but when they cross the line and start breaking laws and planning bombings and shootings, molesting kids, and all the other laws they break, LE should be able to watch them and put a stop to actual bombings and shootings, at the very least. As it stands right now, LE's hands are tied when the right wing are planning bombings and shootings, but can break out the riot gear and go after peaceful protestors on the left. There is something fucked up and wrong with that scenario.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. "McVeigh and Rudolph did massive damage all in the name of free speech."

"in the name of free speech"? Seriously? Last I heard McVeigh acted out of grievance against the government. Rudolph acted out of a belief abortion and homosexuality were wrong. Political violence has never been 1A protected; see, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.

If law enforcement knows ahead of time that these people are planning to do these things, they should be able to stop them BEFORE they bomb and shoot and kill people.

There are numerous stories of authorities nabbing would-be terrorists in the planning stage of committing acts of violence. It's called conspiracy and it carries a hefty prison sentence. I defy you to show the authorities allowing a violent act to be perpetrated if they have actionable information.

America, that lets shootings and bombings count as free speech, essentially, because so many actions count as free speech, including and up to breaking laws in the name of whatever their particular hatred is.

I can't decide which you need to consult more: A civil rights attorney or a proctologist because your claims are so absolutely bizarre.

Incitement to criminal acts has long been recognized as illegal speech. Violence is not protected speech.

Your posts are absolutely divorced from reality.

[Nye Bevan]

72. You seem to be conflating our freedom of speech with freedom to bomb and murder.

You could have just said that those prosecutions could not happen in the US because of the First Amendment. The fact that France does not have a constitutional provision like our First Amendmemt did not stop the Charlie Hebdo killings.

[Throd]

80. I sure hope it never happens in America.

The rest of your post is just weird nonsense.

[underthematrix]

81. If we had that law here most of the GOP candidates

would be arrested and charged

[Oneironaut]

86. Do you think that's a good thing?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. "Do you think that's a good thing?"

I think we're quickly approaching the point where some will say, "Only a racist subject to The People's Glorious Hate Crime Law would think it's a bad thing."