April 13, 2007

ACLU To Defend Nazis Again

The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois -- a city where a number of Holocaust victims and their families had settled. Over 30,000 ACLU members staged a demonstration of their own when they marched out of the organization, even after the ACLU won the case, and even though the Nazis never did march in Skokie.

Thirty years later, the ACLU proves that they have not learned their lesson. The Ohio chapter has agreed to represent the American Nazi Party again in a conflict over a demonstration permit, this time in a predominantly black neighborhood in Cincinnati. Holly at The Moderate Voice shares the e-mail:

On April 20, 2007, the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA—a neo-Nazi group—plans to march through the predominantly African-American neighborhood of Over-the-Rhine in Cincinnati. The city initially issued a permit to the group for its march, but the permit was soon revoked and prohibitions were added by city officials limiting the group’s demonstration to a three-block area. Believing their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly have been violated, the ACLU of Ohio will be defending the demonstrators.

The ACLU condemns violent action and supports its prevention. Yet we also believe that our government must allow citizens their unhindered right to free speech. The City of Cincinnati should stand behind this basic freedom while taking steps to ensure a peaceful demonstration.

As in previous cases where the ACLU has come to the defense of people or groups with whom we disagree, our position is rooted in certain fundamental principles. While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.

I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining the acceptability of political speech. I would not want to have to get permission to hold a public assembly that hinges on the political content of the speech for myself, and I would want government have the same approach for others as well.

However, that isn't what has happened in Over-The-Rhine, at least judging by the ACLU's description. The city did revoke their permit, but then apparently issued another that gives them three blocks in which to demonstrate. That does not sound like an overwhelming burden for the Nazis to meet, and it does not keep them from conducting their protest. They're not being stopped from demonstrating; they want to complain because of the boundaries placed on their protest, even though such permits routinely impose boundaries on demonstrations.

The ACLU will put themselves in the position of arguing that the city of Cincinnati has no authority to determine the geographical boundaries for a protest -- on behalf of a group that would, if given the chance, strip everyone of the right to demonstrate in any form at all. They do so even though they have no requirement to represent Nazis; the Nazis could hire their own lawyers to handle this case, and unfortunately they can probably afford it, too. The ACLU has determined that they can get a lot of publicity for their flacking on behalf of Nazis, and have climbed into bed with racists as a result. They're doing nothing more than unnecessarily enabling the Nazis.

Indiana Jones once said, "I hate these guys." In this context, it would be difficult to determine which group he would have meant.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9677

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ACLU To Defend Nazis Again:

» Free Speech in Cincinnati from The Virtuous Republic
While the metropolitan area around Cincinnati is growing and flourishing, the city itself is on life support. One only has to look at the surrounding counties to see growth and success and prosperity. In fact, if one looks across the Ohio River, yo... [Read More]

» ACLU To Defend Nazis Again from NoisyRoom.net
Courtesy of Captain’s Quarters: The ACLU lost a number of members in 1977 when they defended the American Nazi Party when they wanted to stage a demonstration in the town of Skokie, Illinois — a city where a number of Holocaust victims an... [Read More]

» ACLU defending Nazis again from Stop The ACLU
Shortly after I graduated High School in 1977, the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party here in Skokie when they wanted to march there. I felt that was an rude and audacious move, since so many holocaust survivors and their families live in Skokie; I... [Read More]

» ACLU defends the Nazis again from Cao's Blog
ACLU defending the Nazis again Shortly after I graduated High School, in 1977, the ACLU defended the American Nazi Party here in Skokie when they wanted to march there. I felt that was an rude and audacious move, since so many holocaust survivors and ... [Read More]

» Web Reconnaissance for 04/14/2007 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention. This is the Weekend Edition of the Web Reconnaissance it is updated periodically throughout the weekend as time and family permits. [Read More]

Comments (48)

Posted by locomotivebreath1901 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 11:55 AM

"Illinois nazis? I hate Illinois nazis." - "Joliet" Jake Blues

All governmental agencies are charged ~by the electorate~ with the responsibilty to assess threat levels and possible damage to the public good & public safety in these matters.

You nailed it - the aclu is simply enabling the nazis in thumbing their nose at the citizens of that community.

STOP THE ACLU
http://stoptheaclu.com/

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 12:02 PM

I can't believe that I'm in the position of taking the part of nazis (much rather be seeing if my trusty M-1 can still do what it was designed to do), but...

1. The nazis have as much right to march as the Shriners. So long as they don't start or incite a riot or engage in any other violent activity, then the right to free speech extends to them as much as it does to anybody else.

Plus, as much as I'd rather see them decorating a gallows, sunlight IS the best disinfectant. Let people see what that bunch of ubermenschen really believe... and roll their eyes, laugh, or vomit as the mood strikes them.

2. I despise "free speech zones", which in my opinion are a liberal invention to restrict free speech while appearing magnanimous. While it's in the public interest to regulate protests and parades to keep traffic from being tied up and citizens from generally being inconvenienced, I'm suspicious when the government tells people in effect, "Oh, you have the right to free speech... in certain areas and at certain times."

I feel sick. nazis. I hate those guys.

As for the ACLU... That they are doing this is actually (gag) to their credit. It doesn't take much guts to defend the right to popular speech. They are (choke) doing the right thing.

Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 12:16 PM

docjim505,

I'm with you on this. But the Captain did have a point -- the Nazis still have a demonstration permit, and limiting the area of their protest does not infringe the free speech they are desiring, but does permit the police to protect them.

And, if they try marching through a black neighborhood, I would expect the Tuskegee Airmen's Association and various Jewish and WWII veterans organizations to confront them, after which they may be glad the police (there to protect their right of assembly and protest) were able to concentrate their forces into a three block area.

BTW, anyone can join the Tuskegee Airmen's Association; it has transformed itself from an exclusive club into a historical society. The LA branch has a cool t-shirt picturing all the planes the Airmen flew.

Posted by JohnAnnArbor [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 12:19 PM

There is a security issue; there was quite a ruckus in Toledo a year or so ago with a similar event. Who pays for security?

Not an easy question here in America. In Europe, they'd just ban them, no questions asked. Of course, then they expand who they ban from there. Our approach, of debating the details about demonstration limits but not whether the speech can be said at all, is better.

These guys aren't being banned, so what's the issue? Precisely where they are?

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 12:29 PM

I'm glad to see the ACLU taking on the "free speech zone" issue. If a group of protestors wanted to demonstrate in support of a boycott of a particular business, and the city or state told them they would have to do so somewhere other than where that business is located, I think there is a valid constitutional question regarding whether their freedom of speech is being violated.

Posted by biwah [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 12:43 PM

It is the ACLU's mission to protect minority/unpopular speech, so as a general matter they would betray their mission if they didn't represent the nazis because of their viewpoint.

However the case sounds like a loser. The city probably gave them just enough space to protest to avoid a First Amendment violation.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 1:07 PM

The real enlightenment comes when you ask the nit wits who want to defend the Nazi why they don't also want to defend the poor guy who lives in Downtown Detroit who wants to keep a .38 in his house to protect himself.

They'll defend the Nazi's "First Amendment Right"...but not the normal citizen's "Second, Ninth or Tenth Amendment Rights".

Posted by Cousin Dave [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 3:26 PM

docjim505, I would have more sympathy if the ACLU were to occasionally trouble itself to represent the rights of actual conservatives or libertarians. But they don't. They generally only reprseent liberal/leftist causes. I am convinced that the only reason the ACLU continues to represent these Nazi groups is to embarass conservatives.

Posted by Tom Shipley [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 3:39 PM

"I would have more sympathy if the ACLU were to occasionally trouble itself to represent the rights of actual conservatives or libertarians."

Actually, they do. I think the last I recall was Limbaugh in his drug case.

But every so often you'll hear about the ACLU taking up a case involving a well-know conservative person or group.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 4:01 PM

Token cases, Tom.

Posted by staleoreo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 4:20 PM

I'm no big city lawyer, but can't a request by Nazis to march in a black neighborhood be considered provocation in and of itself? Or is that stretching things too thin?

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 6:06 PM

Cousin Dave,

Oh, please don't misunderstand me! The ACLU is waaaaay down on the list of organizations for which I have ANY regard. In my estimation, it's only slightly ahead of the nazis and commies. Much of my contempt for the ACLU comes from the fact that they do seem to spend most of their time defending scum like the nazis. Is it a dirty job that somebody's gotta do, or do they just get their kicks defending anti-American groups? I know what I think, but I also give credit where it's due: they are right on this one.

Swabjockey,

Yeah, it'd be nice to see somebody other than the NRA and allies groups actually stick up for the 2nd Amendment. I don't know why libs are so hell-bent on disarming the American citizen.

Oh, who am I kidding??? Of COURSE I know why they want us to be helpless. Quite aside from the fact that an armed citizen might shoot and kill some bestial degenerate... er, I mean, poor, misunderstood product of our greedy, capitalist, white, patriarchical society, that is... their feeble understanding of history doesn't stop them remembering the Shot Heard 'Round the World. Tyranny can't survive long in the face of an armed citizenry determined to have its rights.

Posted by Machiavelligz [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 6:20 PM

Actually Captain, I think you are missing a big piece of this story. I have a pretty detailed account of it at my site, http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/C20070403224522/E20070412210759/index.html

Scroll down to the update and read the Enquirer article on the ordinance passed by Cincinnati City Council that bans public speech and demostrations to "any applicant whose stated intended purpose is to communicate any obscenity, defamation, fighting words or words creating a clear and present danger."

Add to that, each group has to pay for police overtime.

Those are some big restrictions on free speech. Yes, these are slimeball skin head Nazis. But J.S. Mill is right on this one. Let them speak and if their ideas don't hold water, they will be discredited.

Free speech is free speech, except in Cincinnati where it apparently has a price.

Posted by Machiavelligz [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 6:32 PM

Just so it is clear, that under this new ordinance, the Nazi group will not get a permit to march, even if they agree to the Central Parkway location.

I wouldn't have a problem with moving the demostration to Central Parkway, because if they march through Over-the-Rhine, there will be physical violence.

Instead, with this new ordinance, this group will not be given a permit, because their message violates one of the stipulations of the new ordinance. Additionally, they would have to pay, probably several thousands of dollars to the city to hold the march in the first place.

Put it this way, for St. Patrick's Day, what if a gay group contends that the Catholic basis of the holiday is hateful to gays? Will the St. Pats day parade be banned? Or what it a group can't pony up the money?

This is just bad law. All that the banning of these Nazis will do is give new credence to the their warped cause.

Posted by richard mcenroe [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 7:38 PM

Has anybody asked the poor Nazis if they want to be represented by a bunch of pedophile enablers?

Posted by BarCodeKing [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 8:04 PM

Why didn't the ACLU defend Imus? "Nappy Headed Hos" is less objectionable than "Sieg Heil."

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 9:10 PM

Indiana Jones once said, "I hate these guys." In this context, it would be difficult to determine which group he would have meant.

***********************

Doesn't matter. Same thing. Different fingers of the same Iron Fist.

Main thing - you won't catch them defending the values of the Founding Fathers enough times to spit at.

The ACLU enjoys these things themselves, and takes pleasure in them that do them.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 9:33 PM

Because freedom of speech is fine.... so long as it doesn't offend you.

DU

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 10:19 PM

Free speech is free speech, except in Cincinnati where it apparently has a price.

Posted by: Machiavelligz

*******************************

ALL our Freedoms carry the burden of bearing the consequences of one's own actions.

Since the idea of "Freedom of Speech" being extended to Socialists came from STALIN in the 1950's. I don't have much sympathy for those who think they ought to have a "CIVIL RIGHT" in America to promote seditious acts of tyranny and dictatorship "IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH" and refusing to bear the burden of the consequences of their deliberately provacative behavior.

Free Speech DOES NOT mean anyone gets to say or do ANYTHING, ANYWHERE at any time without due consideration of the consequences.

We do our nation a tremendous disfavor by allowing the destructive elements to wrestle the reigns of Freedom of Speech from The People, and the original definitions.

Among TYPES OF SPEECH that were NEVER granted Freedom by our Founding Fathers:

INCITEMENT TO RIOT

INCITEMENT (to stampede folks in a panic)

Slander

Facilitation of a felony, a fraud, a con, embezzlement, etc.

Conspiracy to commit a felony

Libel

Plagerism

Pornography

Obscenity

Certain Threats

Certain Intimidations

Sedition

Treason

Calumniating insinuations against the government

I find NOTHING in NAZI or COMMUNIST Philosophy that our Founding Fathers would have thought they had an obligation to allow "in the name of Free Speech" - since as many of you pointed out, those political philosophies would NOT themselves tolerate ANY Freedom of Speech, at all, and would be SEDITIOUS in that they do willfully promote the violent overtthrow of America's civil government and our Constitution.

This is like feeling like you owe the thief who broke in your home all your worldly goods plus a loaded weapon with which he can kill you and your family, too. Because you are "supposed" to be polite, in all circumstances.

I see nothing in a NAZI demonstration that does NOT look like PURE SEDITION and absolute Treason, to me.

And ME - AGREE WITH JOSEPH STALIN that "AMERICA" owes them the Freedom of speech to destroy America from the inside????????

EX-CUSE ME!!!

I say let Marjorie Main yank them up by their ears and turn their tails to the broad sunshine while she tans their hides to a fair-thee-well. THAT is how you handle miscreant brats!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 10:30 PM

I think there is a valid constitutional question regarding whether their freedom of speech is being violated.

Posted by: starfleet_dude

******************************

It's high time someone started asking whether the NAZIS and ACLU are violating their own fiduciary obligations to the communities they live in, or the communities they plan to invade - particularly when they do so against the will of the communities.

You are AWARE, are you not, that ALL members of communities DO have certain OBLIGATIONS to their communites, ARE YOU NOT???

I know this idea may be entirely shocking to most of you Liberals, these days, taken up as you are with the all-comsuming fantasies of your so-called rights to commit ANARCHY upon the communities you depend on for sustenance and livelihoods.

"Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." - Thomas Jefferson; January 1, 1802

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 10:41 PM

Because freedom of speech is fine.... so long as it doesn't offend you.

DU

Posted by: The Mechanical Eye

***************

No, lots of speech offends me that isn't SEDITIOUS, TREASONOUS, SLANDEROUS or FRUADULENT in nature. Lots of MY speech is offensive - AND IS NOT TREASONOUS, nor is it feloneous.

I want my OFFENSIVE speech! I want the right to protest the status quo, or an unresponsive government!

I do NOT support the right of a small band of ANARCHISTS to destroy my government and the Constitution of the United States of America ON FRAUDULENT BASIS and perverted and twisted BUREAUCRATIC rulings, disregarding the HEALTH of the community, in the process.


"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight Eisenhower

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

Posted by scrapiron [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 11:32 PM

And someone is surprised that the ACLU (communist) would protect they're brothers the Nazi's. What rock have you been sleeping under, I want to pi** on it.

Posted by Adjoran [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 12:24 AM

About every 15-20 years or so, the ACLU defends the Nazis, Ayrans, or Klansmen in some sort of 1st Amendment case to perpetrate the illusion they are concerned about the Bill of Rights.

Here, however, the Nazis and the ACLU are correct: government is most definitely abridging the rights of speech and assembly. I find both groups appalling, but, as pointed out above, the whole point of freedom of speech is that the noxious and false stuff loses ultimately if ALL speech is protected. Once the government is empowered to define some sorts of speech as "BadSpeak," there is no longer any freedom of speech for anyone for long.

We didn't beat the Nazis or the Communists by becoming them.

Posted by jehu [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 2:10 AM

The ACLU generally is an ineffectual and often misguided organization. In this case, however, they are doing something positive. The Cincinnati ordinance is blatantly in violation of the 1st Amendment. Even a mere restriction on the location of speech would be a violation, though the ordinance goes far beyond that.

The Nazi group makes no secret of why they want to march in a black neighborhood. It has nothing to do with threatening black people, and everything to do with situations like Toledo, where a few flag-waving Nazis caused the locals to attack their neighbors and the police.

If the citizens of the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood were capable of some self-control, i.e. not rioting when provoked by mere words, there would be no issue. There would be no need for police, no need for ordinances, nothing. The fact is, it's an easy way for the Nazis to score propaganda victories and get attention, because the locals oblige them.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 4:40 AM

Capt...OT?

A neo-Liberal is one who thinks the ACLU is “good” because they “fight” for certain Civil Liberties…but the NRA is “bad” because they “fight” for certain Civil Liberties.

O’ course the idiot trolls will say the reverse is true…but the fact is, I haven’t met a SINGLE NRA member who doesn’t cherish ALL of his “other” civil liberties as well.

As for the commie ACLU shysters being “true” patriots? LOL. A patriot will pick up a weapon and actually RISK something to protect/defend what he believes in…that is, something other than his shysterly six-figure paycheck.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 7:33 AM

Rose wrote (April 13, 2007 10:19 PM):

Since the idea of "Freedom of Speech" being extended to Socialists came from STALIN in the 1950's. I don't have much sympathy for those who think they ought to have a "CIVIL RIGHT" in America to promote seditious acts of tyranny and dictatorship "IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH" and refusing to bear the burden of the consequences of their deliberately provacative behavior.

While I share your disgust with the nazis and your list of speech that isn't protected, nevertheless I think you are treading on a slippery slope by claiming that the nazis, because their speech is seditious, shouldn't be allowed to have their swastika circle jerk.

As soon as we get used to the idea that certain ideas can't be expressed because they are "dangerous", where does it end? As I said in my original post, "free speech zones" are a lib invention made for precisely this reason: to keep speech that they find "objectionable" under strict control with an eye to squashing it altogether. Ditto "hate crimes" laws. In Britain, they're apparently going to stop teaching about the Holocaust because it "offends" muslims. Do we want that attitude here?

If you decide that the nazis can't march because their speech is "seditious", should we allow anti-war protesters to march? Their speech is also (IMO) seditious. However, I say that they should be allowed to march, not only because I believe in the First Amendment but also because I don't want the filthy libs to have legal precedent to shut down speech that they don't like.

To my mind, the choice is clear. We can:

1. Allow all speech (within traditional legal bounds; still not allowed to slander people, for example) even though we find some of it detestable, or;

2. Allow only the speech that is "acceptable" and deal with the fact that the expression of "offensive" opinions (which may include our own) will be prohibited.

I'll take what's behind curtain number one any day.

Posted by hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 7:34 AM

Listening to apologists for the ACLU and the nazis is really entertaining. The ACLU is not about civil liberties. It is about imposing extremists on America. The ACLU is the first to move to censor free speech if it is reotely religious in content. yet they are the first to defend pedophiles and nazis and terrorists.
This is not about freedom, this is not about demonstrator's right to assemble and be heard. This is about two extremsit groups using our legal system to diminish us all. Which is all the ACLU has been about for many years.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 8:13 AM

The city has every right to restrict mass gatherings and protests to certain limited venues.

What confuses this issue is the failure to distinguish between private property and public property. Ownership of property means the exclusive right to the use and disposal of that property. Obviously, government has no right to impose any limits on speech or assembly that takes place entirely on private property; whatever speech and/or assembly to permit or forbid is strictly up to the owner of that property.

But public property is not owned by any one individual. It is actually the property of all the taxpayers who paid for it. And in this case, there is no practical way for the property owners, the taxpayers, to directly control the use and disposal of their property. They must depend on their representatives, the government, to do it for them. And the only just thing to do is insure that the public property is available to the taxpayers for its originally intended purpose.

Thus, since public roads are for motorized transportation, government should see to it that nothing inhibits that use. Sidewalks are for pedestrian traffic -- and government should see to it that nothing inhibits that use. Public parks are for relaxation and leisure -- and government should see to it that nothing inhibits that use.

Thus, freedom of speech means the right to advocate whatever ideas one wishes on one‘s own property or on someone else‘s property with their permission -- but it does not means an unlimited right to do so in public. It does NOT mean the right to interfere with the speech of others by, for example, disrupting someone else who is speaking in public; it does not mean the right to drown out all possible conversation in a given public area by use of a bullhorn or amplified speakers. It does not mean the right to shut down traffic by standing in the road shouting slogans.

Likewise, the right to "peacefully assemble" means the right to gather in any numbers one wishes in any manner one wishes on one‘s own property or on someone else‘s property with their permission -- but it does not means an unlimited right to do so in public. It does not mean the right to disrupt the activities of others on public property by, for example, blocking automobile traffic on public roads or blocking pedestrian traffic on sidewalks by assembling crowds of people.

Clearly, then, government has no right to impose any limits on speech or assembly on private property -- that is entirely a private matter between the property owner and those seeking to speak or assemble -- but it is entirely appropriate for the government to impose limitations on these activities on public property to insure that the taxpayer’s right to use the public property for its intended purposes is not infringed. To that end, the city has every right to restrict a mass protest to some public area that will not interfere with the taxpayer’s rights to the use of public property.

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 9:08 AM

Mike S.

Thanks.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 10:37 AM

Michael Smith,

I see your point, but it sort of makes it hard to (for example) protest at the Capitol or even one's state capitol. The wardheelers, who don't want to be bothered with listening to the complaints of the peons... er, their constituents, that is... could simply say that the right to protest outside the Capitol, as it would inevitably take place on public property, isn't allowed. Nice way to keep the voice of dissent, if not silenced, then comfortably quiet.

All that being said, it's a tough call. I remember seeing images of scumbag war protesters deliberately blocking the streets in (IIRC) SanFran, even to the point of erecting flimsy barricades. This sort of thing goes beyond protesting and gets into disturbing the peace, in my opinion. However, I recognize that even THAT is a slippery slope; one man's vigorous protest disturbs another man's peace. Who's right?

Posted by qwerty182764 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 11:05 AM

I'm actually with you on this one docjim505.

I'm an absolutist on freedom of speech.

1. It's one of the few things you can be absolutist about. Speech doesn't harm anyone! How can it be in violation of someone's rights if it does no harm? The worst it can do is expose your own character, intentions, or loony philosophy. At best, it's one of the precious few feedback mechanisms we have to the government we nominally control.

2. I realy don't see how it can be "exploited", even if it is used by thugs who would take it away. Let them come out and air their authoritarian intentions. Or let them lie about it. Either way, no one is hurt in any real or physical capacity.

3. If you're actually worried about their philosophy taking hold (not that I would worry about that crowd), then the answer to combating it is to make an argument, not point a gun in their face. With neo nazis, it shouldn't be too hard - just point to the results of their philosophy the last time around.

Far from being a means to attack our democracy, insisting on inviolable rights to speak your mind is one of it's foundations. If you are really loyal to this constitution, then you have agreed not to shut your neighbor up, regardless of how vile he is, and to debate with arguments, not police force.

Who gets to decide what philosophy people will be exposed to? Who gets to decide what
speech is fit to air in public? Who gets to decide who gets to live free of offense and what constitutes offensive?

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 3:23 PM

We didn't beat the Nazis or the Communists by becoming them.

Posted by: Adjoran at April 14, 2007 12:24 AM

*******************

Neither do you beat them by giving them Carte Blanche and the Red Carpet treatment to break any laws on the books WE DO HAVE, regarding sedition, conspiracy to commit Treason and sedition,
SLANDER, INCITEMENT to RIOT, etc etc etc etc - under the TOO-BROAD banner of "CIVIL RIGHTS" - taking things under that umbrella that were NEVER intended to be allowed, disregarding the impact on the community.

This last 60 years, the whole has been so busy bending over backwards for the REBELLIOUS that they refuse to count the cost of what they have permitted, like bad parents of brats, disregarding the dismantling of the HOME and House and HEARTH, for the riotous living of the BRATS.

Our Civil Rights have ALWAYS entailed ACCOUNTABILITY and responsibility for CONSEQUENCES.

This bending over backwards til the BACK is broken is STUPID.

"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." --George Washington

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight Eisenhower

We've said it before - it's one thing to grant someone has the right to say what they think - but that doesn't mean we owe them a microphone, and we don't owe them the APPEARANCE that what they have to say is LEGITIMATE or WORTH HEARING - and we don't have to treat EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of ANY MAN that it is VALID - just to grant him the right to say it.

AND SOME SPEECH HAS EARNED THE DETERMINATION THAT IT SHOULD BE BANNED. (I.E. - "FIRE!" yelled in a crowded building where there is no emergency situation at all!)

Therefore, EVEN NAZISM and Socialism and Communism have earned the right to be labeled ILLEGITIMATE, and NOT deserving of the full weight of the community's tax dollars in police protection, etc, to defend the INCITERS from the incitement they have deliberately and willfully provoked.

THAT IS SO WRONG!

PARTICULARLY after the SOCIALISTS abused their offices to rule that EVEN OUR FLAG can be BURNED as an ACT OF FREE SPEECH - then fine - allow them to assemble and spout their FREEDOM OF SPEECH - as long as you allow the COMMUNITY TO RESPOND - after all, sending the police out at TAXPAYER EXPENSE to DEFEND the NAZIS from the consequences of their own speech IS DENYING ThE COMMUNITY THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

So if you are going to extend FREEDOM OF SPEECH to SOME GROUPS, then you MUST extend it to ALL GROUPS and keep the police out of it.

NO FAVORITISM!!!

Let them ENJOY the full expression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH that they are DEMANDING.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 3:35 PM

This is just bad law. All that the banning of these Nazis will do is give new credence to the their warped cause.

Posted by: Machiavelligz

*****************************

It is one thing to know you need people to see what is WRONG with the NAZI SOCIALIST philosophy.

But when you EXTEND THAT OUT to a premise that "THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PROMOTED in a democracy", something is fatally flawed in your thinking.

I suggest you take a time out for some serious meditation.

Evil men have succeeded in duping good men out of their good fortune throughout history by putting the situation in a tiny framed box of their construction, and manipulating good men into thinking they MUST act on the situation from INSIDE the TINY BOX contructed for them by the EVIL MEN.

You won't solve your problem or retain YOUR OWN PROPERTY by operating entirely INSIDE THE TINY BOX constructed for you by EVIL MEN!

The absolute WORST construction that can be used for your FREEDOMS is to let EVIL MEN pervert them and use them FOR YOUR DESTRUCTION - and that requires YOU THINKING INSIDE THE BOX in the most totally stupid manner conceiveable.

GET OUT OF THE BOX. APPLY TRUTH to the situation, and discover the perversion and distortion and TAKE THE SITUATION BACK AWAY FROM THEM AND THEIR MANIPULATING HANDS!

GET OUT OF THE CON JOB!

LIKE A "MARK" - RUN AND ESCAPE THE CON JOB OF THE GYPSY AFTER YOUR LIFE SAVINGS - SAVE your community from the ones who design to establish a DICTATORSHIP over you!

It's a fraudulent and false contrivance - escape it!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 3:45 PM

It is no accident or coincidence that FRAUD is based upon "CONFIDENCE GAMES".

When Americans fall for the premise that we MUST allow DICTATORIAL philosophies EQUAL TIME - and by DEFAULT, actually to be the 98% of the PUBLIC OUTCRY - or else we have squelched "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" - we have fallen for a CONFIDENCE GAME!

Everything in our guts is sc reaming THE TURTH!

When your GUTS are telling you that THIS IS WRONG - but your MIND is trying to over-rule you - that "THIS IS ONLY FAIR" - but your guts are screaming at you - THAT MEANS YOU DID NOT TAKE THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT THE FATAL FLAW IN THE "LOGIC" of:

"BEING FAIR TO NAZISM!"

GET A BLOODY GRIP WHILE YOU CAN!

BEFORE THE NAZI SOCIALISTS AND COMMUNIST SOCIALISTS TAKE THAT GRIP FAR FAR FAR FROM YOU!

Just think how impressed you would be if it was a guy in a van begging you to come ride with him and help him find his cute little lost puppy.

You would NOT be America if you deprive anyone of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

But you also won't be America LONG if you ALLOW the DICTATORS of the world to CHEAT AND DEFRAUD YOU out of your own freedoms by you letting them use them against you - like CALLING IT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" when YOU know it is SEDITION and subversion and Treason, and slander, and calumniating insinuations, and Libel, and incitement to felonious conduct, etc etc etc. - WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN A LEGITIMATE PART OF FREE SPEECH!

Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 3:55 PM

I'll take what's behind curtain number one any day.

Posted by: docjim505

**************************

I would agree with you TOTALLY as long as I see those who have proven themselves guilty of Treason and Slander and Sedition, etc were being taken to trial for those FELONIES.

Instead, they are being elected to the SENATE!

Meanwhile, Adolph Hitler DID ban "The Mortal Storm", with Jimmy Stewart, which demonstrated how "harmless speech" in a small village DID hurt a lot of people, even took it to the point that elderly people could be STOMPED on the city streets in front of others and the others were intimidated from protesting or stopping it. For the sin of being a SMALL BUSINESS OWNER - "perceived" as cheating others in trade.

Remember the small business owner that Al Sharpton was convicted of inciting a riot against, who was murdered, his shop looted and burned down over him, whom Sharpton has never paid the ordered RESTITUTION to?

In that movie, decent professors were drummed out of the local university - and DISAPPEARED at the same time! And there was no outcry!

THAT IS HAPPENING TODAY in AMERICA!

And there is no outcry!

I wouldn't be so proud of looking like 1938 GERMANY! as America does, today!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 4:01 PM

Who gets to decide what philosophy people will be exposed to? Who gets to decide what
speech is fit to air in public? Who gets to decide who gets to live free of offense and what constitutes offensive?

Posted by: qwerty182764

We fought WARS because CERTAIN PHILOSPHIES have already ESTABLISHED themselves as far more that "offensive" and that when they prevail NOBODY gets to live free, whether "of offense" or not!

When they prevail, even though we see them breaking laws our government is not wi lling to prosecute - tell me how WE WIN.

Then I'll show you "THE MORTAL STORM" with Jimmy Stewart, and show you how much we look like 1938 Germany - "trying to get along in order to get along"!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 4:06 PM

I can't believe that I'm in the position of taking the part of nazis (much rather be seeing if my trusty M-1 can still do what it was designed to do), but...

88888888

Then consider the FACT that you must be missing some vital and essential TRUTH inside the little box you are sitting in that was constructed for you by the ACLU and Joseph Satlin - since your gut is screaming at you like it would at a suspicious stranger watching a small child on the playground.

You have a fabulous thinking cap - PUT IT ON and GET OUT OF THE BOX and figure out what is wrong with that box that Joseph Stalin created, FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA FROM THE INSIDE!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 4:17 PM

the whole point of freedom of speech is that the noxious and false stuff loses ultimately if ALL speech is protected. Once the government is empowered to define some sorts of speech as "BadSpeak," there is no longer any freedom of speech for anyone for long.

We didn't beat the Nazis or the Communists by becoming them.

Posted by: Adjoran

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

However, ALL SPEECH IS NOT BEING PROTECTED - only the noxious speech is.

Christian stuff is being banned all over the place, and the rights of the COUNTER-PROTESTERS are always being abridged, AND SLANDERED, and the FELONEOUS SPEECH isn't being prosecuted.

So therefore, the noxious and false stuff IS NOT LOSING.

In fact, it is dominating the UNIVERSITY SCENES where they get to speechify all they want, BUT CONSERVATIVE SPEECH IS BANNED because the SECURITY is "INADEQUATE" for the occassion, SO SPEECH IS CANCELLED, by FORMER MUSLIMS, or by CHRISTIANS or by ANN COULTER, etc.

SO ALL OF IT ISN'T BEING PROTECTED. But the ACLU gets OUR TAX DOILLARS to protect the NOXIOUS and FALSE.

Something is WRONG here!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 4:23 PM

Posted by: docjim505 at April 14, 2007 07:33 AM
********************

No doubt you know some of the folks that Columbia University has had to speak to them in the last few months, including some representatives of the Iranian government.

Why don't you call them up and book an event there for Walid Shoebat, Bridgette Gabriel, Ann Coulter, and John Hagee - and let me know how all this "FREEDOM FOR ALL" is playing on a GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED UNIVERSITY GROUND is going, these days!

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 7:26 PM

Rose,

While you and I agree on the fact that "good" speech (peaceful Christian proselytization, for example) is being curtailed if not outright banned by the left in the name of "tolerance", the answer doesn't lie in lining up to demand that speech that WE find offensive also be banned. Instead, we should be fighting to see that the First Amendment applies equally and as the Founding Fathers intended. For example, I can't imagine James Madison having an attack of the vapors because a child gives out religious Christmas cards in school.

As far the the nazis go, remember that the German-American Bund: there were nazis marching in uniform and sieg heiling their odious flag in America before the war. Happily, the vast majority of Americans saw very clearly that Fritz Kuhn and his band of losers were nothing more than a fifth column for Berlin. They also saw with equal clarity that the nazi ideology is absolutely anathema to everything that Americans hold dear; they didn't buy what Kuhn was selling. The same can be said for communism. I remember during the Cold War seeing the commies put up a candidate for president every four years (usually Gus Hall); they had their protests, waved their red flags, and generally made asses of themselves... when anybody bothered to notice. There are idiots, thugs and traitors among our people who are drawn to organizations like the nazis, the commies, and the klan, but most Americans see such groups for what they are and steer well clear of them (when they aren't laughing at them, a la "The Blues Brothers").

You mentioned the despicable behavior of some of the students at Columbia University and the shameful attitude and actions of the administration there. In my opinion, three things need to be done:

1. Charges should be pressed against people who break the law. The little bastards who disturb the peace or outright assault speakers should feel the full weight of the law; no making excuses for them and letting them off the hook on the grounds of "youthful indiscretions". Lefty thugs should be made to understand that the law protects even us nasty ol' reichwing bigot homophobe Christian racists... and prosecutes even self-righteous, self-appointed little pricks like them.

Same with the nazis: those scumbags can have their little march, but the instant they step out of line, the Cinci police should thrown them in the klink so fast it'll make the brown come off their shirts!

2. Conservatives should continue to tell our side of the story in whatever venues we can find. The attention of the public should be drawn to universities or other public institutions that ask hostile foreigners or seditious Americans (I use the term loosely) to speak but will not ask conservatives or Christians to speak. Dr. Mike Adams does a lot of this sort of thing, and FIRE does good legal work when the lefties on campus get too out of control. There are other people and organizations who fight for conservative values; they can use financial help.

3. Keep a close eye on what your kids (in my case, my niece) learn in school. Are they being taught the lefty party line? If so, give them some straight facts at home and encourage them to stand up to lefty teachers intent on indoctrination instead of education. Sean Hannity made a splash along these lines when he encouraged students to tape their lefty teachers' rants and publish them. Review their textbooks, especially the history and social studies books.

There's two sides to every story; make sure the kids hear both of them.

There's no doubt in my mind that the left presents a serious challenge to not only our civil liberties but also our continued survival as a nation. But I think, too, that their power is on the wane. They're being called more and more often on their attempts to violate our civil rights with "hate speech" laws and "free speech zones"; they weren't able to railroad the Duke lacrosse players as they might well have done just a few years ago. Americans are starting to wonder more and more often why their tax dollars are going to support university productions of "The Vagina Monologues" but won't allow Christian groups and fraternities. More and more people are seeing lefties them for the wanna-be tyrants that they are.

But we can't beat them by becoming like them. If the filthy nazis want to march, they've got a First Amendment right to do so. If we deny it to them, who else will we deny? And how long will it be before libs use this as an excuse to continue to try to deny it to us?

Posted by Rufus [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 14, 2007 9:30 PM

The ACLU NEEDS to defend NAZI's again because they've lost their rep for being supporters of the bill of rights. For the last 20 years they've been supporters of some rights for some people and against rights for others. They've blown their brand and are now perceived as just another bunch of left wing law thugs looking to implement their agenda.

Personally, I see this as a modern echo of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Ever since I saw the "Stop the ACLU" movement I've expected them to go back to defending NAZIs. It allows them to deny being leftist thugs in suits while not actually helping any of the institutions they've been visciously attacking.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:27 AM

But we can't beat them by becoming like them. If the filthy nazis want to march, they've got a First Amendment right to do so. If we deny it to them, who else will we deny? And how long will it be before libs use this as an excuse to continue to try to deny it to us?

Posted by: docjim505

******************************

You have a lot of valid points - but you still have it backwards - we are ALREADY the banned ones, and the noxious ones are already preomoted.

They have First Amendment RIGHTS - BUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE SUFFERING THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, now, do they???

Have you ever gone ahead and watched "The Mortal Storm"?
Plenty of folks in Germany thought their safety lay in being quiet and making sure NOBODY saw THEM as a threat of any kind.

We know the quiet ones were the FIRST to be led away. QUIETLY.

There is something rotten here - we are allowing them to run a bulldozer through LEGITIMATE BARRIORS that are there TO PROTECT healthy communities - because we are playing inside THEIR BOX.

And our nation is being stomped to pieces like a cardboard box in the rain.

AND NOBODY IS PICKING UP THE PIECES, EITHER!

Meanwhile, you know you aren't going to reverse the situation at Columbia University and other places, by demanding ANYTHING.

They don't care WHAT you demand - DO THEY! All they have to do is accuse you (Conservatives in general, generally speaking) of being a racist and you shrivel up like a frog for hybernation.

Have you ever seen Walid Shoebat, or Bridgette Gabriel speak? Read a book by Corrie ten Boom?
I don't mean, did you see the Corrie ten Boom movie starring that British Actress who is an anti-semite.

You are as likely as a snowball in Hades to get the changes you recommended.

And I am a praying and believing OPTIMISTIC Christian.

But you are dealing with Liberal bastions which do not fear the American taxpayers - they have Liberal BUREAUCRATS in their pockets, and they don't even know you exist.

And their material is so pervasive, you look like an idiot half the time, when you try to tell your children the information they dish out is false.
Thank God, they do it so stupidly that at times, you get a small foothold, and a crack starts, and you can make an inroad or two or three - but UNDO what they mush in???

Everyone in America was filled with criticism of 1938 Nazi Germany for 50 years - and look at us - WE ARE DOIING IT THE SAME EXACT WAY.

If you don't believe me, read what Walid Shoebat and Bridgette Gabriel have to say about it - they have lived that same stage in the Middle East, too.

They and many others are doing all they can to call out a warning in America today - and have to have police escorts for it.

If you don't get out of the box, very very soon, it will be far too late.

It is time to figure out what the sandbagging tactic really is and fight it.

For one thing, TREASON DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO ANYTHING!

Our Founding Fathers laid a foundation of warning to you - ignore it at your own peril.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 9:17 AM

Very interesting discussion here. For those who think we have an "echo chamber" here at CQ, the discussion between Rose and DocJim is proof positive that "debate" (intellectual debate) is the desired method of engagement here.

I tend to be in the same mindset as Rose on this issue; Doc and others make some good points also.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:03 PM

Posted by: Keemo at April 15, 2007 09:17 AM


****************

Thanks, Keemo, for the support of the DEBATE, as well as the support of my position.

I also think Doc has some FABULOUS points - CRUCIAL POINTS that must be honored.

They are indeed America's birthing pangs.

I hope I am making that perfectly clear.

It is just that there are some parameters that are vital to keeping a community safe, and the world just spent 50 years wondering why the Germans didn't stop Nazism before it became a world war.

I think we are seeing precisely why they did not - THEY DID NOT KNOW HOW TO DIFFUSE IT IN THE DEBATE STAGE.

And we have to recognize that we cannot always diffuse something wrong, within the debate arena, and yet still MUST protect our community from the devastation of it.

I think that is why God tells us to always be ready to give an explanation for our faith to those who ask of us.

He wasn't merely talking about our faith in God, He was talking about studying to have an answer for those who challenge us with various courses of actions - some that SEEM RIGHT TO MAN, but are not.

We must NOT let CON ARTISTS put us in a box where, though no matter how UNCOMFORTABLE the box feels, we stay in it "BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO" - EVEN though we see the trap set and falling on ourselves in that position.

This is why Eisenhower warns us of the difference between rebelliousness and SEDITION, and why the Founding Fathers frequently warned us about the efforts of conniving men to overthrow our Constitution and institute a dictatorship over our nation.

We of all people on earth OUGHT TO SMELL SOMETHING WRONG when conniving men begin to lead us about by a ring in our nose - yet we can see by the changes in our land which we did not desire to see, that clearly, we have been led a merry chase, and handed a "Bill of Goods" that is a fraudulent deceit - all within ONE GENERATION.

We need to remember that Germany was in a position that WE OURSELVES ARE NOT IN - not that it was one of their desire - but at least there were a number of nations that IN THE END were WILLING to do whatever it took to stop that plague from covering the entire planet.

America, England, Canada, and Australia - we do not have anyone out there who will save us from this same path, which we saved Germany from.

There is no other "AMERICA" that will bail us out!

If we don't get hold of ourselves now, we will usher in what Germany and the USSR both tried to and failed - DUE TO US.

Shall we, who rescued the world several times before BY THE GRACE OF GOD HIMSELF, in the end BECOME THAT VERY INSTRUMENT that finally brings it to pass?

IS "NAZISM" MORALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY LEGAL TO BE PROMOTED, in AMERICA?

I say NO! Most Americans say NO! And that is enough. Constitutionally.

JUST BECAUSE A COMMUNITY HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT BURDENS THEY WILL BEAR - OR NOT!

And if the majority of us do NOT wish to bear certain DESTRUCTIVE burdens, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DENY IT!

And that tiny minority yelling that we do not have that right, IS LYING!

WE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO DENY A BURDEN. PARTICULARLY A DESTRUCTIVE BURDEN.

Just like we have the right to deny a TYPHOID MARY the right to roam free from village to village, "HELPING" the sick and poor!

And our nation was founded upon that clear understanding - THAT IS WHY WE WERE FOUNDED A NATION OF LAWS AND NOT OF ANARCHY!

And SOMETIMES, it is VITAL that the community exercise that right TO PROTECT ITSELF. Even when they do not have a clear understanding of WHY the "RIGHT" someone is demanding to be a destructive force in their midst IS BUILT ON A FALSE PREMISE - the FACT is we all know that SOMEHOW it is VERY FALSE that NAZIS have a right to promote their philosophy.

One bit of REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY we have fallen from is the LIE that IF WE DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND, it will only cause others to rebell and rush TO that thing we wish to forbid.

We swallowed it from Dr. Spock with our children - and after a few decades, we extended that to our LAWS.

We swallowed it when we signed mutual disarmament treaties with the USSR - and KNEW THEY DID NOT HONOR THAT TREATY - and built huge underground complexes - BUT WE VIRTUALLY OUTLAWED UNDERGROUND SHELTERS except from tornadoes.
We didn't inhibit them in the LEAST by "their fears of destroying us".

Unfortunately, that spilled over to many other areas, as well! NONE GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITIES - and increasing our burdens unnecessarily.

Well, FEAR OF REBELLION cannot be a SOUND BASIS for refusing to set HEALTHY PARAMETERS for our family and for our community.

IT IS VITAL THAT WE FIND THE TRUTH THAT WILL DISMANTLE THIS ARGUMENT THAT DESTRUCTION HAS A RIGHT TO PREVAIL AGAINST THE SURVIVAL OF OUR COMMUNITIES.

There is no giant army out across the ocean that will protect us from our own folly.

And we MUST do it in the DEBATE STAGE if we do NOT want it to happen in the midst of another CIVIL WAR, the likes of which would destroy this nation, indeed.

The secret DOES NOT LIE in being silent when armies of Nazis march through OUR neighborhoods, and "not letting them provoke us".

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:24 PM

Holly at The Moderate Voice says: While we in no way endorse the views of the American National Socialist Workers Party, we believe that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press would be meaningless if the government could pick and choose the persons to whom they apply.


********************

She is RIGHT - we cannot stop PEOPLE from speaking, due to RESPECT OF PERSONS.

HOWEVER - WE CAN STOP TREASON, SEDITION, SUBVERSION, FRAUD, SLANDER, LIBEL, CONFIDENCE GAMES (i.e. , PYRAMID SCHEMES).

And as such, it is INHUMAN not to stop NAZISM.

WE CAN STOP DESTRUCTIVE THINGS!

We are NOT an ANARCHIAL govt.

If the foundation of allowing NAZISM to reign on our streets is VALID, then we have no right to stop DICTATORSHIP from prevailing on the earth.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:25 PM

Rose and Keemo,

Thanks for the kind words and civil debate. As I said at the first, I can't believe I'm in the position of (gack) sticking up for nazis.

On a somewhat related note, I tried to discuss this case with my 11 year-old niece this weekend. Since she goes to North Carolina public schools, she had no idea who the nazis were and only the haziest idea of what the Holocaust was. Needless to say, I was outraged (though not surprised).

This is what I mean by keeping a close eye on what our kids are (or are not) learning in school. Nazis, commies, the klan, and other such organizations prey on the ignorant; they are able to more easily pass themselves off as defenders of decent, hardworking, white folk or the proletariate or whatever when people don't know the murderous histories of their ideologies.

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:47 PM

Good point, Doc. I'm really enjoying this debate, your points are the things my heart loves dearly.

And while I am only slightly too young to remember the Nazis personally, I grew up cutting my eyeteeth on the biographies of folks who lived through it, and one of my friends is a man who was among the first to arrive by foot at Dachau, being able to smell the place for six miles, with his fellow foot soldiers. When he arrived, the gates hadn't been opened, and many rows of prisoners were pressing the first row deeply into the barbed wire fencing, in their anxiousness to see the Americans arriving.

I've got to go out for a while, but I am searching for a piece I once read too long ago, about how the Founding Fathers' ideas of Freedom of Speech were centered upon the person's willingness to take a punch in the nose if what he used his Freedom to say were to offend the next fellow - and only to expect the police or constable to step in if the GENERAL peace were to be disturbed by the personal argument of the few.

I think our solution may indeed be in that parameter - that the ability to punch the other fellow in the nose has been lost due to the auspices of the ACLU!
And isn't necessarily a fair weathervane to remove from the arena of public debate.

I am pretty sure it was something Ben Franklin said.

Well, I am running late, now. But you can depend on it that I shall return! hehehehe

Keep up the good fight!

Posted by Rose [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 15, 2007 12:53 PM

BTW, the DEFINITIONS are removed from recent Dictionaries for Nazi and USSR, Socialism and Communism, too.

We have quite an uphill battle on our hands.