Racist posters in parts of Phila. deemed legal

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

Racist posters put up in Port Richmond and Northeast Philadelphia were "repugnant," but still legal, the city's Commission on Human Relations said yesterday.

The poster features a photo of slain Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, who was killed while trying to apprehend bank robbers earlier this month in Port Richmond.

The poster also shows three other white Philadelphia police officers killed in the line of duty, and the three black men charged in their deaths. It reads: "Guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do. How much longer can you ignore this?"

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080522_Racist_posters_in_parts_of_Phila__deemed_legal.html

[Teaser]

1. I don't see how it could be illegal

.

[ohio2007]

3. Which group is the minority population of Phily ?

[Teaser]

6. there are several minority communities in philadelphia

Which one do you want to know about?

And if there's a connection to my post, I'm not seeing it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Every group:

* Black (43.2%)
* White Non-Hispanic (42.5%)
* Hispanic (8.5%)
* Other race (4.8%)
* Two or more races (2.2%)
* Chinese (1.2%)
* Other Asian (0.9%)
* Asian Indian (0.8%)
* Vietnamese (0.8%)
* American Indian (0.7%)

(Total can be greater than 100% because Hispanics could be counted in other races)

http://www.city-data.com/city/Philadelphia-Pennsylvania.html

[bean fidhleir]

48. "I don't see how it could be illegal"

I don't think it would be hard to construe it as an incitement to targeted violence. Is there *any* doubt in *any*one's mind that that's what's intended?

[xioaping]

64. Repugnent but not illegal n/t

[navarth]

2. "Dangerous Minorities"??

That could be interpreted in many ways. Wouldn't the Bu$h Crime Family fit that description??

[RethugAssKicker]

14. This WILL NOT be interpreted in different ways !

Everyone who reads that sign.. will KNOW exactly what it is intending to mean.

and you know that !

[navarth]

27. I didn't mean that...

Those posters could only be interpreted ONE ugly way, I'm with you.

I was making a sarcastic comment about the phrase 'dangerous minority'.

I guess I wasn't clear enough, because you misinterpreted me. But I feel ya.

[Blaq Dem]

31. That's how Hitler started with the Holocaust

I appreciate the response I've read so far from those of you who are of European descent. This is your chance to stand up to racism. We must remember what happened when Hitler blamed Jews for the ill of German's society. Hitler's sentiments still survive today. It's easier for them to pick on disadvantage minorities. No one complains. If we don't stop this evil now, they will eventually work their way to you. (There's a quotation that's often cited about this.)

[Honeycombe8]

62. But the difference may be...what do the stats in Philly show?

If the stats show that it is mainly minorities that kill people, they have the reality on their side. Not that I condone those awful t-shirts, and even if it were true that mainly minorities killed people with guns, I'm sure it's not ONLY minorities that killed people with guns.

But to equate that t-shirt with how Hitler started demonizing the Jews in Germany is not really accurate. The Jews in Germany were lawyers, doctors, business men, professors. The Germans made movies equating them with rats...how they multiply, are dirty, spread diseases, etc. All things that were statistically untrue. The Germans just wanted the "fereners" out of their country (altho they had entered legally) and to quit taking their money, as they saw it. (Many Jews were wealthy as a result of their endeavors.) It's just not the same thing.

Still, I'm surprised the t-shirts were allowed. It sounds like hate speech to me.

[Blaq Dem]

67. There's not much difference...

Hitler wanted a world of lily white blonde-haired blue-eyed people. Yes he started with the Jews. His next targets included dissenters, non-whites, and people with disabilities. Hitler filled people's mind with hatred.

Our society should not get too comfortable with blaming minorities for crime. The t-shirts send a message that America is better off without minorities. Of course, we're not going anywhere. There are freaks out their who want to rid the minority population. We should never take such threats lightly. "Lest we forget."

[panzerfaust]

71. You can even get the T-Shirt

Sadly, this apparently is not just a one-off skin head slogan: And NO, they are not talking about the BFEE

[MikeNearMcChord]

4. That sounds like the National Alliance a "nice" group of guys.

That last part of the poster sounds like a threat, I wonder what would White Philadelphia would do if there was a poster that said "Guns don't kill people, White People do. How much longer can you ignore this?" I would suspect many in Philadelphia would lose their minds.

[Tempest]

5. Minorities should put up posters of white cops who are criminals

Start with L.A.'s Rampart division and the Rodney King cops.

[Teaser]

7. I believe it's been done

.

[NoGOPZone]

32. Exactly. Put up posters of the four cops who were just fired for the videotaped beating, too.

[RethugAssKicker]

8. This is BLATANT RACISM.... How could this be legal ??

[Seeking Serenity]

9. How, under the 1stA, is it illegal? (n/t)

[RethugAssKicker]

13. So, you approve of it ?

[mach2]

15. Not to speak for anyone else, but approving of the act isn't the same as supporting

the right to do it. Perhaps you can get national support for a Constitutional Amendment saying "No citizen shall ever again be offended."

[Seeking Serenity]

19. Concur.

There are lots of things said that I may not like, but that I know are protected by the 1stA. I just have to let it go.

[BigDaddy44]

25. I take it you didn't study a lot of logic when you were being educated

YES its repugnant and YES its also legal sheeeeeesh

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seeking Serenity]

30. Oh, THAT'S lovely.

(working hard to self-censor here)

[Quantess]

47. You don't need to approve of something to point out that it isn't illegal.

But, I'll let that DUer answer for him/herself.

[Rhythm]

51. Unfortunately, it's not a matter of 'approving of it', it's a matter of restricting free thought

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."

Justice Holmes had it right back in '29.

Despite it's repugnance, the views expressed on those posters must be allowed their soapbox. Our duty as progressives is not censorship; rather, ours is to work to change the hearts and minds of those who would think in such a manner, so that such a view no longer has subscribers or an audience.

[keroro gunsou]

55. he's got a point

the poster and justice holmes. though i'd go one better, the freedom of speech allows us to know who the idiots we should keep an eye on are. let them run their mouths, it just give more opportunity for the more sensible amongst us to point out what a complete bunch of crap their arguements and views may be. face it, you'd rather have these cockroaches out in the open, much easier to squash that way.

[Spouting Horn]

52. Free Speech

includes speech that you or I don't "approve" of.

If we only allowed speech we "approved" of, then we may as well get rid of the 1st Amendment.

edit: fix typo

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. What laws would it be violating?

:shrug:

[Regret My New Name]

17. Because it's not illegal to be a racist moron or to say racist shit...

[bean fidhleir]

49. It *is* illegal to incite violence

And I don't see how any reasonable person could draw any other conclusion about the intent

[ohio2007]

18. Do you have a pic that shows these racist posters splattered everywhere?

Seeing is better then knee jerking

[krispos42]

20. It's speech by a private organization

Unless it's inciting a riot, or riot or slander or something like that, it is protected under the First Amendment.


If it was the city doing this, that was something else. But it's not.

[iverglas]

43. and they were just quoting another private organization

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080519_City_investigating_racist_posters.html

The line about "dangerous minorities" comes from a parody of the National Rifle Association on the adult cartoon series Family Guy. In the episode, Dad wants to be more of a man's man and looks at joining the fictional National Gun Association. The NGA recruiting video encourages parents to get their kids to cuddle up to guns (Petey the Pistol) as early as possible, reminds people that "Jesus and Moses used guns to conquer the Romans," and ends with the same "dangerous minorities" line.

Oh, well, whoops, quoting what it would say if its leaders didn't have an IQ just high enough to figure out that it wasn't in their interests. Well, if you don't count Ted Nugent.


What I can't figure out is exactly what the things were "plastered" on. Public property? Sounds like the public needs a policy about what may be plastered on its property and what may not. Me, I wouldn't be able to think of why the public would want this shit plastered on its property, or why it wouldn't be able to prohibit it.

[krispos42]

46. "Keystone State Skinheads"?

:rofl:

They probably sit around circle-jerking to burning crosses or photos of lynchings or something like that, so keep on the lookout for guys with hairy palms, bleach stains on their clothes, and the smell of scorched wood clinging to their persons







"It's a lower-case 't',officers! A lower-case 't' for 'tolerence'! I swear!"


:-)






I think I saw that episode of "Family Guy", but it's been a few years.

[cstanleytech]

22. It's a thing called the first amendment,

it generally protects me, you (assuming you live in the US) and others and grants us the right to express ourselves, it has its downside of course at times as it even protects those like this group with views that might be disgusting and people like Fred Phelps.

[PSPS]

11. Laying thr groundwork for an Obama nomination

"Keystone State Skinheads?" This sounds to me like a way to start "talking" about an eventual Obama/McCain contest in blatantly racial terms in an indirect way. I don't know if it will work, but it would be an obvious way to apply the GOP "southern strategy" in a race between a black man and a white man. Obama = black and "dangerous." FEAR! Vote for the white guy!

[ohio2007]

16. Philly had voting problems in the past.

I find it odd they will again have problems in counting this november.
But with a Mayor named Nutter , it doesn't suprise me.
take it with a grain of salt

[otherlander]

21. The best way to avoid fascism

is to let fascists speak.

Still, this sucks. Who the hell actually thinks that way? :(

[iverglas]

35. worked well in post-WWI Germany ...

Sometimes I think that the only thing some people manage to say about hate speech is that no one should attempt to suppress it.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7113186.stm

In a piece entitled: "Do fascists have a right to free speech?" (Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell) writes: "It is possible that if there had been no free speech for Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany during the early 1920s... they may not have grown in strength and influence.

"Denying them an opportunity to propagandise, gain respectability and enter the political mainstream might have thwarted their rise to power. Tens of millions of lives may have been saved if the free speech of Nazis had been suppressed early on."

Who knows, eh?

[bean fidhleir]

50. I sometimes think the right to "free" speech is a tool of the ruling class

because it isn't truly free. There are certain things that can safely be said, though the same things, directed at different targets, cannot. The powerless can safely be targeted, but the powerful cannot.

I think we could demonstrate that by putting up pictures of wealthy exploiters juxtaposed with a similar message.

[xioaping]

65. I hope the rest of the time you realize you are

wrong to think free speech does not keep you free. It is not a perfect protection but it is a darn good one. On the other hand, we could ban this forum and all others on the internet.

[pokercat999]

38. Lots and lots of americans in the "heartland". I've

written about this before.

Growing up in PA I recognized that most everyone I knew and even some members of my extended family were racist. Since then I've discovered that they were just as or more racist than almost anyone I've ever met in the South, where I've lived for 30 plus years.

Things haven't changed that much and when I return to my "roots" it is painful to hear what comes from the mouths of my old friends and acquaintances. What is really strange is that most of these people have never interacted in any meaningful way with a person of color and can't recognize that their opinions have no basis for validity or in reality. They are just repeating old prejudices handed down from generation to generation from ancestors that were even more clueless than they are.

I'll never understand how these people of average intelligence in most matters can be this stupid about race.

[rms013]

23. Walking the Line

This racist poster is very carefully worded but make no mistake it is written to incite action against the minorities of Philadelphia. This city of brotherly love has a history of administrative racism within the police department and it's courts. If you remember Mumia Abul Jammmal or the Move organization police bombing and murders or the recent video taped beating of the alleged robbers by the police.

How many other communities would support this as a first amendment right to hate speech and inciting action against minorities? Would your's?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. it is legal. first amendment rights.

[David__77]

26. Of course it's legal, but they should get their asses beaten.

Mass action is the best answer.

[Seeking Serenity]

29. No, because then, the butt-beaters would be breaking the law.

It's called assault.

No violence, please. Make it hurt in their wallets. That's a worse punishment for these types.

[NorthernSpy]

33. we should put up posters highlighting white-on-white crime

White supremacists only care about cases with a white victim and a nonwhite perpetrator. They never acknowledge the larger number of cases in which both victim and perpetrator are white. White-on-white crime is a sore spot with them -- especially where sex crimes against children are concerned. On white supremacists forums, people complained bitterly about the attention given to such cases as the rape and murder of Jessica Lunsford, age 11, because her killer was a white man, and they didn't think it was fair to publicize that fact. It's just that they didn't want that heinous act to stigmatize white men in general...



:eyes:

[iverglas]

34. remember all those numbers I crunched?

As I recall, the upshot was that whites kill a larger proportion of the black population of the US each year than blacks kill of the white population.

[Snarkturian Clone]

36. Link to the FBI report for 2006

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

[iverglas]

39. thank you

2005, population of US, by race:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html


keeping it simple (both numbers and ethnic/racial designations),

White: 238 million (75%)
Black: 38 million (12%)


From your link:

Whites killed by blacks: 573
Blacks killed by whites: 208


573 as proportion of white population: 1/415,358

208 as proportion of black population: 1/110,577


Whites killed 3.8 times as high a proportion of the black population as blacks killed of the white population.

[fed_up_mother]

40. But looking at it the other way

A smaller percentage (blacks) killed a larger number of whites. There are many more whites, yet fewer black victims of white on black homicide, so fewer whites are killing blacks than blacks killing whites per capita.

Satistics can say just about anything you want, so you really don't want to go there. And those statistics don't tell us anything about the socioeconomic factors of all involved - like poverty.

[iverglas]

42. actually, that was the purpose of the original exercise

Satistics can say just about anything you want


It was done several years ago (in a discussion somewhere else altogether, that NorthernSpy was also involved in) in response to the usual hoohah about the dreadful things that black people do to white people, citing analyses like the one you offer -- i.e. I was not the one who went there, at the time. I just thought that white people killing off black people at nearly four times the rate in reverse was an interesting little fact.

[NorthernSpy]

45. if you're black, your odds of being killed by a white offender are roughly twice as high...

... as the odds for a white individual of being killed by a black offender.


I know you're not used to hearing it that way, but that's what the numbers say.


Another thing that the numbers say is that same-race homicides (overwhelmingly committed by men) are the rule, and everything else is the exception. In 2006, 3,709 white victims mostly fell prey to 3,026 white perpetrators -- to the complete indifference of white supremacists, who only want to talk about the much smaller number of interracial homicides.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

A smaller percentage (blacks) killed a larger number of whites. There are many more whites, yet fewer black victims of white on black homicide, so fewer whites are killing blacks than blacks killing whites per capita.

If offenders chose their victims at random, without regard to race, whites would be a majority of the victims of black offenders, whereas blacks would remain a minority of the victims of white offenders. If race weren't a factor in victim-selection, black offenders would kill about 5 or 6 times more whites than blacks. But they don't. The reality is that they kill over 5 times as many blacks as whites.

[NorthernSpy]

41. Yes: in other words, Random Black Individual is about twice as likely to be killed...

... by a white perpetrator, than Random White Individual is to be killed by a black perpetrator.

That's because for each black, there are several whites. The difference in interracial homicide rates according to race of perpetrator doesn't translate into a greater likelihood of victimization for an individual of the majority group. In fact, the opposite is true.




573 Wvic,Bperp homicides
225,000,000 whites.................................... = 0.000002547 or 0.0002547% of the 2006 white population died in homicides committed by blacks. A white individual's odds of dying in such a homicide over the course of a year are roughly 1 in 392,670.


208 Bvic,Wperp homicides
42,000,000 blacks...................................... = 0.000004952 or 0.0004952% of the 2006 black population died in homicides committed by whites. A black individual's odds of dying in a such a homicide over the course of a year are roughly 1 in 201,923.



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_05.html

[dger11]

66. Bad data..

The data in your post don't take into consideration the fact that Hispanics are counted as "white" in the FBI homicide statistics. In 2003, 28,600 Hispanics and 46,900 non-Hispanic whites were incarcerated for murder. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p05.pdf (page 9) Even though the table doesn't show murder rate directly, the homicide rate for Hispanics is higher than the rate for whites. This screws up your math a bit.

[NorthernSpy]

69. about half of Hispanics self-identify as white and nothing else...

And persons of Mexican origin have long been considered white under US laws.


Now you're saying they're not allowed to be white? How come? Why change the rules now?


In any case, if as you suggest Hispanics-not-whites are the likely perpetrators of many Bvic/Wperp homicides, then you would certainly have to reduce the figures for Wvic/Bperp homicides as well. After all, Hispanics and blacks typically live in closer proximity and have more day-to-day contact than blacks and "real, non-Hispanic" whites do.


So if Hispanics are more likely to be perpetrators in these incidents, then they -- rather than "non-Hispanic whites" -- are also more likely to be the victims. That would still undermine a key white-supremacist talking point.



One question: why is it that the conversation surrounding pedophilia and sex crimes against children is never racialized? Is it because the offenses seem unusually likely to involve white offenders?

I've seen white-supremacist and other right-wing groups attempt to portray that issue as one of "gay crime". That seems to me to be another example of the same kind of psychological "distancing" that allows Hispanics to be expelled from whiteness. The problem is always a stigmatized "them". Never us.

[Snarkturian Clone]

37. This poster was found at a Philly police substation... I wonder if it's related

I don't want to post it but here's the link below:

Link to image: http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/photo_servlet?contentId=6591230&version=1&locale=EN-US&subtype=MIMG&siteId=1011&isP16=true

[ohio2007]

72. I'm still waiting to see the posters myself.Nobody seems able to provide a link

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/photo_servlet?contentId=6591230&version=1&locale=EN-US&subtype=MIMG&siteId=1011&isP16=true
That looks like a magic marker on a sheet of paper
I suppose that is what all the ruckus is over ?

[Blue_Tires]

44. ugliness

[BreweryYardRat]

53. Legal. Unfortunately.

To be honest, I would like to see hate speech added to the "prohibited speech" laws that apply to the First Amendment. This shit is indirectly inciting violence.

[tctctctc]

54. Throw a bucket of WHITE PAINT on it

call it a new art piece.

"WE, The People, REFUSE TO FIGHT YOUR NAZI RACE WARS!!!"

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unvanguard]

57. Hate speech is not free speech.

If we want a tolerant society, we should restrict intolerance, not let it run free.

[wmbrew0206]

58. Who gets to decide what is "intolerant speech"?

[Unvanguard]

59. We do, democratically. Subject to a constitutional standard ruled on by the courts.

Like everything else.

Free speech rights are already not absolute.

[Rhythm]

60. And the problem with that is that sometimes the Bad Guys are the majority

So what do we do when the Fascist nutcases gain the majority and declare that Atheist sentiments are "hate speech" against religious people? When environmental and animal rights groups like PETA and Greenpeace are banned and silenced as "hate groups"? When gay rights advocacy is declared "hate speech" against heterosexual families? Or when political protest becomes "hate speech" against the government?

A constitutional standard is a flimsy protection at best, because the constitution can be changed. Besides, the constitution exists to tell the *government* what its limits are...not the people. We should never give the government the power of deciding what is and is not "morally" correct speech. Clear-cut public safety issues are one thing; the "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" standard is sensible and limited. Banning something as vague and subjective as "hate speech" is a horrific idea. God only knows what the government would do with a power like that.

I'm a member of a persecuted minority who's listened to hate speech my entire adult life, and I would literally DIE to defend the First Amendment as it is, even if it means that assholes like Fred Phelps get to say hateful things about me. I'd rather be dead than to live under a framework where, if the Phelps-types gain major power, I might be imprisoned for expressing my views about *them*.

[Unvanguard]

61. Yes, that's right. That's why we have constitutions.

If you think constitutional protections are worthless, why is the current status of the First Amendment any better?

In any case, definitions of "hate speech" need not be particularly subjective--we can, and should, make them explicit and narrow. And free speech in the United States already can be limited under some rather "subjective" standards--take obscenity, where the courts have gone out and said that it's a matter of "community standards," whatever those are.

Your argument also fails empirically: other countries have hate speech laws, and while particular cases may be disputable, they simply have not had the catastrophic effects you suggest.

[cigsandcoffee]

68. For an anarchist, you seem to trend authoritarian.

I wouldn't like to live in a country were speech was too heavily restricted. That's a very slippery slope.

[Fountain79]

75. Something like.....

"Intolerance will not be tolerated!"

[MadMaddie]

63. Well since the US doesn't really have a functioning Civil Rights

Department now...ALL or most of the courts have been corrupted.....wait why does that sound so familiar? Oh yea.....kinda how the Nazi's came to power.....

I would like to see the statistics for the state on all murders and the criminals that committed the murders.....

[Fountain79]

76. So a court case that rules for the freedom of expression is a decline in Civil Rights

Or am I mistaken?

[panzerfaust]

70. Guns don't kill people ...

Dangerous "Morans" Do

[ohio2007]

73. something like that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmp9Ei_bUpI

[ismnotwasm]

74. Dangerous, like cracker skinheads?

I don't get why it's not illegal, because "minority" isn't a specific enought term?

At any rate, this is disgusting.

[Fountain79]

77. Cause in a free society you have to deal with ass*****

we can't just shut down the speech we don't like.