Toledo Mayor: Neo-Nazis Had Right to March

[NVMojo]

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) -

The city was calm Monday after weekend violence triggered by a white supremacist group's march along the sidewalks of a racially mixed neighborhood.

A melee broke out Saturday when protesters confronted members of the National Socialist Movement who had gathered at a city park.

"They do have a right to walk on the Toledo sidewalks," Mayor Jack Ford said Sunday.

An angry mob, some of them gang members, threw baseball-sized rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a bar. More than 100 people were arrested and one officer was seriously injured.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/oct/17/101708654.html

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Yeah, I guess they did

But in this case Freedom of Assembly was messy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. Freedom is always messy

And they deserved the same protection of their right to assemble and freedom of speech that we all get.

Pity that thugs don't know that, and used one of our most precious freedoms to go on a thieving rampage.

The racists were law-abiding; the "protestors" were not.

Interesting.

[OKthatsIT]

104. the violent response was expected and acceptable to me

[OldLeftieLawyer]

107. Well, then,

make sure to keep bail money around the next time someone says something of which you don't approve.

You probably should have an attorney on retainer and make sure you have all his numbers.

Oh, and up the coverage on your homeowners'/apartment dwellers' insurance policy, because when you get sued for obstructing that person's civil rights, they might cover you.

Might.

Odds are you'll get sued out your butt, and have to cough up everything, just because you were an uninformed and intolerant American. And, unlike the Nazis, who were abiding by the law, you would be told by the ACLU to piss off.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

116. OldLeftieLawyer

is right again.

Why do we keep having to go through this "people I don't like have no right to march" routine? How soon we forget.

Listen to OLL.

[Old sixties guy]

80. Ever since Katrina African Americans

Have been deep frying in their psychic pain,festering with anger at the scenes unfolding from New Orleans.
Could the scenes have SOMETHING to do with the explosion of black anger triggered on the surface by the Nazi march?Hmmm,I wonder.
Could the collective consciousness of the black community in Toledo been hurt to the point where lashing out was a legitimate response to the pain?
Now I am a middle aged white male but live and work around mostly black folks and if you don't think there is an incredible resevoir of rage around the government-perceived as the WHITE man's government-then you are living in an illusion.

[Loonman]

2. vandalized vehicles and stores, and set fire to a bar.

Reasonable response to protected speech and assembly.

/NOT

Free speech means tolerating views you find disagreeable, even abhorrent.

[shenmue]

3. Technically true

Although the amendment permits peaceable assembly. In any event, even skanks like them have freedom too.

Despite the violence, I am so glad they got some fear put into them and had to see that a lot of people really don't like them.

[greygandalf]

6. It was definitely worth the destruction to scare the neonazis, not n/t

[shenmue]

11. Well...

I don't like destruction much either, but it's fun to see these bastards have to take their own medicine for a while. They preach hate and violence and act like they're so tough. Then when somebody fights back, oh do they ever run like the chicken****s they really are.

How do you think we are supposed to handle these people? They don't want to change, they won't go away. If they were marching down your street, you wouldn't burst into rhapsodies about your love of the Constitution.

Like I said, I don't like violence but I'm glad these morons saw what people really think of them. I don't see any reason to hide the feeling that I gloated quite a bit when I saw what had happened. In a way I'm sorry about what happened, but I also cheered. I bet a lot of other people did too.

[Loonman]

15. Yeah, destroying their own neighborhood sure showed them Nazis!

Showed the Nazis that their half-baked, wacked-out nonsense has a grain of truth to it(in their Nazi minds, that is) if folks can't ignore or ridicule a bunch of goose stepping idiots.

Fighting back? The Nazis were long gone by the time the neighborhood boys and girls strted trashing the place and buring a building. Probably somebody who had a business, was a law abiding citizen and then a bunch of ruffians burn and loot the place.

[shenmue]

17. They still got run off

Putting the wrench in the works of their we're-so-tough image. And they always think they're right anyway, whether or not this happened, so I don't think their opinion changed for the worse after this. It's the same thing anyway. Do they change their minds after peaceful protests? No. Do they ever not think hatefully? I'm guessing no.
Would they have changed their thinking in any event? I really doubt it. I sincerely doubt that they would have just walked home thinking, "Maybe we're wrong," if this hadn't happened. These people are the type of knuckleheads who really don't change. Sad fact. There's always a certain percentage out there so hardheaded you'll never get to them.

Should they have been allowed to march, since the officials should have guessed this sort of thing might happen? I repeat: peaceable assembly is legal. Someone could have thought ahead and figured this is bound to be bad news. It's like the marches in Belfast that always go haywire.

[Loonman]

23. So...the net worth of them being run off is:

Looted and burned local business

Baseball size rocks hurled through the air

Two days of curfew and violence.


And they always think they're right anyway

Who cares what they think or don't think? So long as they don't act violently on their racist tendencies, it's all protected speech.


Would they have changed their thinking in any event?

Who cares? You can't take away a person's right to be an asshole, or to have weird, ridiculous or even outright disgusting opinions.

The best response to the marching Nazis you ask?


Everybody could have stayed inside, shut the blinds and let the Nazis march around in empty streets.



Lot of calls for violence on this so-called peaceful/tolerant board. Disturbing, to say the least.



"free speech" for all....unless you disagree or even hate the speech, I suppose...

[shenmue]

29. Excuse me, I did not call for violence at all

Take that back. That's a pure 'straw man' error. I said I did not like violence, but I'm glad these creeps got their we're-such-badasses image punctured.

Hateful people don't listen to peaceful people. They just don't.

I know some people think you can convince anybody. Sad truth is, you can't.

And law enforcement already know they have a dangerous job. Yes, I hate what happened to them, but it's a sad part of the reality of their job. What do you think it means if someone accepts riot squad duty or any on-the-street police work, really? There's risk!

Once again, I said repeatedly that I don't like violence. And I'm damn sure I never advocated it. I said I gloated a little, because a part of me likes to see people who try to dish it out have to take it. That's all.

But hateful people are awfully hard to talk out of it. We can sit here and smile and be happy and loving all we want. They don't care. They haven't changed yet, probably won't.

Is there one way to be peaceful? KRS-One: "When negativity comes with a .22, positivity comes with a .45." I don't think he actually wants us to wave guns at each other. What he meant is you've got to come back at these people as hard as they do to you. Hateful people already reject our message of love. They sit there and laugh when you say just talk to them!

That said, I'm sure you'll misinterpret me again.

[Loonman]

31. OK

I don't like destruction much either, but it's fun to see


I said I gloated a little, because a part of me likes to see people who try to dish it out have to take it.


So you don't like violence, but if by proxy it occurs to some wrongheaded individuals it's A-OK.


But hateful people are awfully hard to talk out of it.

Why bother?

[shenmue]

54. Yeah, why *did * I bother with you in the first place?

You missed my point again. As I predicted! And you put words in my mouth. Again. Predictable. Dull, as well. And did I mention, wrong?

Guess I owe myself five bucks, then.

I won't be talking to you about this anymore. My chair is more responsive.

[Loonman]

63. I'm just sayin'

Free speech for me, but not for thee, doesn't wash.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. Remember Skokie, 1978?

You're saying all the correct things, Loonman.

Ever read this? "When The Nazis Came To Skokie" - http://tinyurl.com/do8hw

[Loonman]

77. The thing I hate is having to defend the Nazis

We might as well flush the BORs down the toilet if we are to systematically eliminate every point of view we personally disagree with.

Gads....nobody understands that.

Things can't always be right, but they can be fair.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

83. Eternal vigilance, my friend,

really is the price of liberty and freedom.

What's always entertaining is that, in my experience, more often than not, it's the "liberals" who want to curtail free speech.

Imagine how this nice Jewish girl felt explaining to her parents that she was helping the Nazis.

Things don't have to be right or fair, but they must be treated equally. Always.

[BronxBoy]

98. As a Black man.....

I hvae to agree with you a 100%. On the one hand, a lot of us are deeply angry at the stereotypes that we were subjected to after Katrina. And I know I'm just as pissed when our community pulls a bonehead act such as this. The actions of these folk did nothing but provide substance to the very depictions we are so sick and tired of.

And it's too late in the day for Black Americans to tolerate "They are frustrated and angry" as a justification for fucking up our own neighborhoods.There is too much at stake for us in this country for us to react in this way.

[Tomee450]

68. Oh please

stop making a big issue out of the incident. Violence is always bad and I hate to see it but some people are acting as if only blacks riot which is not true. There have been many riots after football games and on college campuses. In fact, whites rioted during the Winter Olympics after they could not get into the bars in Salt Lake City. They attacked each other, bars, cars and the police. The only thing different is that the rioters were white and nothing much was heard about it. They weren't called thugs or criminals. People have been rioting since this country began. However in the minds of some people, riots by blacks are seen as worse than others.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. The people who did the damage

were not law-abiding.

The racists were.

How's that for irony?

[tx_dem41]

33. You think its "fun" to see a lot of innocent people's property get..

destroyed. The way to deal with this is through the non-violence taught by MLK and Gandhi. If you answer back with violence against innocents, I don't see how you have accomplished anything but placing yourself at the level of those you scorn.

[shenmue]

57. Very easy for you to say that

And what happened to MLK, remember?

Non-violence helped him a lot in the end, didn't it.

Oh, for a couple of armed guards who weren't 'opposed' to violence!

Think he would have liked me if I were one of them and I saved his life with a gunshot to the assassin as soon as I saw the guy pull a gun?

[tx_dem41]

65. What happened to him is not the point...What did he accomplish..

with non-violence, and what did Gandhi accomplish with non-violence? One awoke a world, and the other toppled an empire.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. Their rights are the same as yours and mine

They deserve all the protection that any speech should get, and hateful speech, because of its very nature, requires even more protection.

I'm sure you're familiar with what happened in Skokie in 1978, but, in case you're not, there's a wonderful book that tells this wonderful story about how America works - America at its best.

It's this -----------> http://tinyurl.com/do8hw

I was proud that that matter was my first work for the ACLU as a young volunteer attorney. Justice prevailed.

It's a fascinating story.

[badger1080]

9. I'm sure it was news to them

I'm sure it was news to them that they are not liked among the black community.

From their perspective this couldn't have gone any better.

[shenmue]

14. I'm sure that wasn't news

But they probably didn't think anybody would fight back.

They invited some of this on themselves. I mean, what did they think people are going to do?

[greygandalf]

16. Turn the anger against the nazis into something positive

Maybe a pro diversity rally the next day. That would kill the nazis in a true way. Their negative message gone.

[shenmue]

19. Well that is better

Sure, but the objects of the protest are not going to care. The thugs probably already know that most other people prefer diversity.

[greygandalf]

21. But their message is killed, the nazis forgotten

Instead of news for weeks like now. Neonazis in the news and talked about for weeks. :mad:

Mamke no mistake the nazis were the victors in this.

[400Years]

20. yeah, we could all gather round and sing kumbaiya

that would scare 'em :eyes:

[greygandalf]

22. very cliche, but yes

That would have been a dagger to the nazis heart. Instead of a win for them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. Bravo, greygandalf

And welcome to DU................

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[greygandalf]

26. not sure what your reading

I was saying exactly the opposite. What happened was not positive. I was saying what the response should have been.

[badger1080]

36. I don't think they were too surprised

"But they probably didn't think anybody would fight back."
I think they proly thought it was a possibility. Sounds like they planned for it atleast. It's not like they could just all run off and blend in to the crowd when it hit the fan. Granted I'm only going on short news articles, but it sounds like they were pretty organized.
Also sounds like they were long gone when the worst of the rioting occured.

Maybe they were scared, but I'd guess the law abiding residents of the neighborhood were even more so.

[ticapnews]

4. First question at Monday's press gaggle should have been:

"Scott, does the president support the Nazis who marched in Toledo on Saturday?"

[NVMojo]

7. for sure!

[dmkinsey]

5. Freedom isn't free

Going into the street with a message of bigotry and hate SHOULD come with a terrifying price tag.

I'm only sorry that the riot damaged the neighborhood property. Should have stayed focused on the nazis

[greygandalf]

8. some views should have a "terrifying price tag"?

If that's the case, it isn't free speech. You are now scared to state your views. Also the nazis would then be "under the radar" so to speak. Not stating there views in the open where they can be debunked.

[Loonman]

10. Interesting point of view....

Wishing harm on others with differing, even repugnant, opinions is a very fascistic way of thinking.

Irony...can you dig it?

[Igel]

13. I agree. It's called 'losing the debate', 'social exclusion' and

'peer pressure.' Attempts at vigilante justice.

Even worse when it punishes the innocent--and the vigilantes *know* they're punishing the innocent.

It turned out to be an adult temper tantrum. Those that did it need an enforced "time out."

[OldLeftieLawyer]

75. Wrong, wrong, wrong

You're completely wrong about that.

Free speech must be protected, and hateful speech - no matter how much you dislike it - must be most carefully protected.

If you try to silence anyone, they will then have the right to silence you.

That is contrary to what our Constitution spells out.

The focus was on the speech, and the thuggish opportunists got to loot. There's a REAL protest, huh?

[hogwyld]

84. Am I the only other one

That agrees with dmk? Any message that is so hateful as to incite violence should be quashed. Respectful dissent is what civilization is about, not rioting in the streets. If it was me, I would love to ship them boys off to deepest, darkest Africa, and we'll see how "commited to the cause" they really are!

[dmkinsey]

109. Remember, freedom to speak does not include

Fightin' words.
I'm totally for the nazi's exercising their right to speak. I'm not even advocating their butts being kicked in the aftermath.
BUT...I am saying that the nazi needs to think real hard about how important this speech is. Is it worth getting beaten up over?

If the nazi goes to a neighborhood to tell the people living there that they are hated a resonable person can predict that the nazi may be in physical peril. Whether I advocate the violent reaction or abhor it, the reaction is predictable.

I do regret that innocent bystanders were victimized and had their property damaged but that's why the nazi and klan are usually required to exercise their free speech inside a protective cordon of police in an area free of anything throwable.

[dean_dem]

120. Hey, you're right!

And those abortion doctors are free to abort babies, but they need to ask themselves if it's worth getting shot over!

And Gay couples are free to show affection in public, but they need to ask themselves if it's worth getting stomped over!

And those pesky troop-hatin' liberals are free to believe what they want, but they have to ask themselves if it's worth getting harassed and threatened over!

:banghead:

[dmkinsey]

122. Here is an example

I haven't had time to read all the cases, there are several.
Anyway, my point remains that ALL speach is not protected and free speach does not mean that one can go anywhere and say anything.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Chaplinsky_v_NH

Case Summary for Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
The following is a notable passage from Justice Murphy’s opinion: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906 . . . ."

[dean_dem]

123. That's the yelling fire in a crowded theater argument

I don't think it applies here. Saying that black people and jews are inferior is an idiotic statement, and obviously hateful, but not in itself an incitement to violence. It would be pretty hard to argue that it falls with "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

If it does, it's a pretty slippery slope. Just saying.

[dean_dem]

119. Wrong, wrong, wrong

You can't be serious? So, it's okay to have opinions as long as they square with your own? The problem with this country is that there are so many people that believe that BS.

This is America: people have the right to be inappropriate assholes, and the right to assemble with larger groups of inappropriate assholes. You can't pick and choose who has rights and who doesn't simply because you disagree with them. If you can't see that you're no better than the flag humpers on that certain other messageboard.

[Skip Intro]

12. well, they do - n/t

[AlCzervik]

18. He's correct, i hate that it happens but that America.

[Hobarticus]

25. Who got hurt by this? The Nazis are GLOATING....

The Nazis got their march, the cops got pummeled, the residents watched their neighborhood turned upside-down, and the owner of that apartment and the bar lost their property.

Meanwhile, the Nazis walked away, whistling. Do you really think they give a good goddamn about that neighborhood, and their reaction? They FEED off of this. They're not like you and me.

They went into that neighborhood specifically to stir up rouble, and they got it. Today, the Nazis aren't saying, "oooh, look what we caused, this is horrible", they're saying, "see?".

If any mayor had a goddamn lick of sense, he'd tell these fascist assholes "sure, you can march...but you must float a $1m insurance policy, first, to cover the damage, because it's gonna happen. It's your right to march, true... but it's our job to protect our city. Otherwise, you're on your own. See how far down the street your Thousand-Year Reich gets without a line of cops protecting you."

[Loonman]

27. So lack of self restraint on behalf of the "protesters" is the fascist's

....fault.


Check.

[Hobarticus]

28. That's not what I said...

Matter of fact, I said nothing of the sort. Where'd you get that, check-master?

[Loonman]

30. For one thing

We wouldn't be discussing this now, if nobody gave a rat's ass about what the Nazis had to say. Instead the fascists' aborted rally was used as an excuse to loot, burn, and cause mayhem.

[Hobarticus]

32. Okay, so you're saying it, then?

I disagree. The looting, burning, and mayhem is indeed criminal, but it wouldn't have happened without a catalyst. The catalyst was the Nazi march.

Unless you happen to know what the rioters had planned for that day if the march hadn't happened, to pretend the Nazis had nothing to do with this is pretty naive.

Blaming the Nazis isn't the same as excusing the riot, either. The rioting was criminal.

[Loonman]

44. Catalyst?

http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-0086481.html


Planned for.

[Hobarticus]

50. Poor judgement on city's part, poorly planned for...

From the article you referenced:

"This never should have happened," 80-year-old Ed Kusina, who has lived in the neighborhood nearly all his life, said Sunday. "They should have never let them march here."

"I was shaking. I feared for my life," said Rybczynski said.

Keith White criticized city officials for allowing the march: "They let them come here and expect this not to happen?" said White, 29.

Obviously the neighborhood saw the Nazis as a threat, sanctioned and protected by the police. Doesn't justify their criminal actions, but it was pretty stupid and poorly thought-out to allow this march. Think this march would've been allowed if it was in the mayor's neighborhood? Why didn't the fascists march through the mayor's neighborhood, by the way?

What's your point, BTW? You say that the Nazis were NOT a catalyst, then? So city leaders allowing white supremicists to march through minority neighborhoods is a good thing?

[NVMojo]

64. the city is wrong for not having an established parade route

down mainstreet instead of allowing subversions of parade routes down any neighborhood. We had a whack job religious nutt in our town a few years ago who wanted to take a "Jesus Loves Mexicans" parade down the streets of the poor side of town where all the hispanics live and ...where all of our town whore-houses are located. Several of us stopped them at city hall when their applications was to be voted on. They were forced to march down the mainstreet and not single out one class of people for Jesus' love on a public street. The CITY IS WRONG IF THEY HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT YET!! JEEZUS!!

[Loonman]

72. That's a bunch of pure D crap

So people showing up with ideologies that are despised are a good enough reason to abdicate personal responsibility and descend into chaos and violence.

"Gee, officer, I had no reason to brick that window until the Nazis showed up"

Pathetic.

[Hobarticus]

79. Why do you say I'm excusing the rioter's behavior?

I have clearly said that I'm not, haven't I?

Are you saying that the riot would've broken out without the Nazis? What's your point?

So you weave something out of thin air, pretend I said it, then claim it's "pure D crap"?

Man, that's, uh, brilliant.

[Loonman]

82. I'm saying you can't

You can't blame the Nazis for the looting, burning and 2 days of chaos. The Nazis shitcanned the march and took off before the real violence started.

Did they cause high emotions? Yes. Is that an excuse to loot and burn and turn a small section of Toledo into Fallujah for two days? No.

[Hobarticus]

86. I never said that. n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

76. Insurance to exercise your basic right of free speech?

Oh, man, that would have invited a lawsuit of colossal proportions.

You cannot isolate a class because you don't like what they believe.

Welcome to America. Your speech is protected, so is mine.

So is the Nazis'.

We are all Americans. Keep that in mind.

[Hobarticus]

85. I'm fully aware that their right to free speech is protected....

As well it should, as repugnant as it is. But a little common sense is needed. I don't have to like what they believe to recognize that they represent a threat to public safety everywhere they go, especially when they target certain neighborhoods. I don't see riots following Cindy around, and there's plenty of people who disagree with her.

I'm not isolating them, at all. But they should be prepared to bear the financial responsibility of their actions, or at least hold their little rallies without police escort.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Wrong, wrong, wrong

Their tax dollars pay for the police to protect them.

They're Americans, just like us. The fact that their speech is unpopular means they are deserving of careful protection.

You are isolating them when you would deny them the basic rights of all Americans and make noise about posting a bond in order to march or deny them police protection.

You need to re-acquaint yourself with what the Bill Of Rights says, and keep in mind that you and I could be the targets of attempted oppression - such as you're proposing here - of the Republicans who would want to stop us from marching in favor of, say, freedom of choice or bringing our troops home.

If you want your speech to remain free, you'd better demand that the Nazis' enjoy that same right.

[hogwyld]

88. I peacfully disagree

I don't think they are paying taxes in Toledo. Also, free speech also comes with responsiblilty. If I were to go into say Oakland and start yelling racial epithets, I would expect there to be consequences to such action. The nazi's are no different. They need to realize the fruit of their hate!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. Oh, please

Now you would contest their right to speak because they're not residents of Toledo?

Man, you have missed completely the message of what it means to be an American.

We all know that you are not protected if you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. That is NOT what happened in Toledo - the Nazis were peaceful.

Irony?

You do not understand free speech, my friend. I do urge you to get a copy of "When The Nazis Marched In Skokie," a brilliantly-written book that tells a story every American should know.

[hogwyld]

101. Not at all

They can speak where they want, BUT, if the neighborhood disagrees with them, they can "encourage" them to leave. And please, don't tell me that I don't know what it is to be American, I served 6 years in the Armed Forces defending yours, mine, and everyone elses rights. What I am saying, is if they want to spew their hate, they need to deal with the repurcussions.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. Wrong, wrong, wrong

Their speech is just as precious as yours or mine, and deserving of all the attendant protections.

Serving in the military was your choice, and good for you, but don't try to tell me that your service did anything to protect my rights. It didn't do that.

The Constitution does that, and how often, in your military service - where, I might add - your Constitutional rights were suspended in deference to the USMJ - did you take part in anything having to do with citizens' Constitutional rights?

There are no repercussions to legally protected free speech, and that is the essence of America. You clearly do not understand that.

"... they can encourage them to leave." What a repugnant thing to say. Thinking like that is betraying yourself as a thug and bully where free speech is concerned.

They were legal - the looters were outlaws. How's that for irony?

Go read the Bill of Rights and discover exactly what it means, that pesky free speech thing that seems to bring out the worst in otherwise decent people.

You might learn a thing or two if you stick around DU.

[Ferret Annica]

115. I was in the U.S. Army nine years myself.

And I say authority concerning peace on the streets responsibility lies with those who hold the authority to police people getting along peacefully despite differences in political opinion.

Not a lynch mob-like rabble who don't take to heart what the philosopher Voltaire said; "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.

I hate the Klan too. But everyone has the First Amendment right to free speech. That was one thing I served to defend and protect.

I didn't do it to get the strange notion service gave me the preoperative to form a gang to bully away those I don't like.

That sets a bad precedent, and you would be hollering for help from authorities if suddenly you experiences a logistical shift giving your political enemies the advantage forcing you to preform a retrograde action.

One ironically you would bully them into preforming.

(Retrograde is retreat for you non military types.)

[Hobarticus]

90. Ohhhhh-kay....

Maybe next time the Nazis will bring balloons for the kids, too.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

91. Boy,

this is the last place I'd have expected to find a free republic mentality towards unpopular free speech.

Yeah. Free speech, just so long as you get to decide if you like it or not.

Tsk, tsk.

Never fear - when someone tells you that you're not allowed to say what you think, I'll defend you.

[Hobarticus]

92. Tsk, tsk, yourself...

Please, claim once again that I said that Nazis have no rights, so you can give me another high school civics lecture.

Someone can stand in front of my house and provoke me. Protected.

If someone stands in front of my house and starts provoking me with police escort, I'm going to ask the police why he has the right to provoke me like that, where I live. In the context of a peaceful counter-protest, also protected.

If my neighbor burns down my house because someone is standing in front of their house provoking them, with police escort, I'm going to demand from my neighbor and the police why this happened in the first place. Instead, I get told I'm denying the Nazis their rights. Oh, and I have to pay for the damages to my house, myself, because it's my neighbor's right to be express his anger in such a fashion. Huh?

Go ask those people in that neighborhood if they feel peachy about having protected the Nazi's rights. Don't they have a right to not feel threatened? Or is their fear secondary to the Nazi's rights?

Better yet, let your local Nazis know you want them in your own neighborhood next time, so you can protect their free speech.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

93. As I said,

I'll defend your right to free speech when someone - anyone - tries to curtail it.

In the meantime, go read the Bill of Rights again - or for the first time, if that's applicable.

And then see if your local library has a copy of "When The Nazis Marched In Skokie" - http://tinyurl.com/7mpdr

If they don't, let me know, and I'd be glad to buy you a copy and have it sent to you, because, as I've said, it's a story every American should know.

[Hobarticus]

95. I know the story, and I've read the Bill of Rights...

I'll defend your rights, too. I'll even grudgingly defend the Nazis' rights.

And I'll respect your choice to ignore my point of view altogether, or talk down to me asusming that I haven't read the Bill of Rights, or even call me a freeper, because our points of view aren't eye to eye. It is your right, after all.

Peace.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

96. Well,

if you put yourself down there with that kind of freeper thinking, you'll perceive clear thinking and language as "talking down." It's not that our points of view are different - you're just posing false and incediary hypotheses that had nothing to do with what was going on in Toledo.

My offer for the book stands. It's a brilliant story, a real victory for America.

[Hobarticus]

97. No, I'm not. That's your point of view.

Again, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their logic and reasoning faulty. Down below you tell someone to calm down and have a bagel when they express their opinion. But, whatever makes you feel good. Toots.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

100. Know your Constitution

and how it works in your daily life.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You got that wrong.

I'm saying that there are protections that are required by the First Amendment, among others, and your stance is overlooking that.

Nothing wrong with a little enlightenment, is there?

[Realityhack]

110. IMO Thats way WAY off base

Do you know how easily that could silence any decent? gee... these democratic protesters at the repubican convention are really asking for it... beter have them pay $50M for security so we can make sure nothing bad happens.

> "they represent a threat to public safety everywhere they go"
Sounds to me like you don't want them to have the right to speak or march ANYWHERE without paying the entry fee.

> "or at least hold their little rallies without police escort."
Now there is a brilliant plan. What exactly do you think would have happend then? You want a full scale riot with numoruous deaths on both sides? Seems to me its the JOB of the police to maintain civil order and protect our rights when people try to trample on them. Wither thats someone stealing or someone harrasing you, or someone trying to stop you from excersizing your right to free speach.

[plasticsundance]

34. There might be a gray area in the law

These Neo Nazis might not have a right under the law to march, especially if it is to incite using the swastika.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of burning crosses:

Held: The judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

262 Va. 764, 553 S. E. 2d 738, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate. Pp. 6-17.

(a) Burning a cross in the United States is inextricably intertwined with the history of the Ku Klux Klan, which, following its formation in 1866, imposed a reign of terror throughout the South, whipping, threatening, and murdering blacks, southern whites who disagreed with the Klan, and "carpetbagger" northern whites. The Klan has often used cross burnings as a tool of intimidation and a threat of impending violence, although such burnings have also remained potent symbols of shared group identity and ideology, serving as a central feature of Klan gatherings. To this day, however, regardless of whether the message is a political one or is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a "symbol of hate." Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 771. While cross burning does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation, often the cross burner intends that the recipients of the message fear for their lives. And when a cross burning is used to intimidate, few if any messages are more powerful. Pp. 6-11.

(b) The protections the First Amendment affords speech and expressive conduct are not absolute. This Court has long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban "true threats," e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (per curiam), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, see, e.g., id., at 708. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. Pp. 11-14.

VIRGINIA v. BLACK et al.

[badger1080]

37. But..

They were calling attention to crime or whatever they said.

It's doesn't seem like a hard law to get around. The message they claim to be marching for isn't the problem, but who they are. Really hard to outlaw that.

[plasticsundance]

39. I understand your point

One could allow the march, but if they had swastikas it might be a point of legal issue. The swastikas could have been taken as a violation of what the city would allow, and arrests could have been made.

[prolesunited]

59. As abhorrent as I find the Nazis

I would never want to outlaw them.

What part of freedom, democracy and our Constitution do you not understand?

[hogwyld]

81. Responsible dissent?

People cannot go around inciting violence. I would love to ship all these nazi, fundie, rw idiots to some deserted, quarantined island, leave them there for 100 years, and see what fruit develops

[prolesunited]

99. They didn't incite violence

You can't argue that a group's Constitutionally protected freedoms by its very existence incites violence.

And I am sure they would love to do the same to liberals.

That's why we have laws that protect both sides equally.

[hogwyld]

103. Indirectly, they did

The nazi's, by their own twisted ideology, incite violence. The propose a master race free of blacks, jews, GLBT, etc. They think the monsterous 3rd Reich was awesome, just didn't finish the job.

[Loonman]

62. Where's the part about swastikas?

That's about the Klan. Swastikas, although verboten under bullshit "hate crime" laws, are not illegal, but upsetting. Like a T-shirt with "FUCK" written on it. Offensive? Yes. Illegal? Not really, but close.


Section b) of Virginia vs Black is way too vague.

[plasticsundance]

118. I have not come to a conclusion

The very fact that the law might be vague, may open it to interpretation for a future hearing/trial.

"Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Respondents do not contest that some cross burnings fit within this meaning of intimidating speech, and rightly so. As the history of cross burning in this country shows, that act is often intimidating, intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence. Pp. 11-14."


I would think a swastika is more likely to bring about the disruption of fear for a Holocaust survivor, as opposed to the word fuck. Just because the Court ruled on burning crosses, does not mean the law will not set precedent for future cases.

Neither you or I will know until it is tested in the court of law.

[OzarkDem]

35. There was a problem, though

The city never should have allowed the neo-nazis to go into the neighborhood. That was a big mistake.

They could easily have let the little fascists parade around city hall or the bus station or something, but the never should have given them a permit to go into the AA neighborhoods. Dumb.

[superconnected]

38. Getting mad at the protesters is sort of like getting mad at the rioters

after the officers who beat up rodney king got off.

If they can't find justice in the government, they throw out the government.

Apparently they perceived this as an in justice. The typical response happened.

The city law makers should have handled this better. A neo-nazi group should not be marching through an inter-racial neighborhood because it insites the feeling that allowing racial hate is okay.

btw, It is not wrong to throw out our government after justice fails. The declaration of independence calls us to do that.

These people didn't seek justice through the system first, and they should have.

But I applaud them for acting quickly when they percieved injustice. The rest of America didn't as the supreme court chose our president and the patriot act passed congress.

[tx_dem41]

40. The Declaration of Independence calls for us to burn down the

property of innocents?? Geez...I didn't know that.

[superconnected]

43. I didn't say the declaration of independence call for use to burn down

places. That's your words.

What a distortion.

Perhaps you should re-read the declaration of independence and my post. You have it very wrong.

[greygandalf]

41. Applaud them for punching themselves n/t

Destroying their own neighborhoods.

[superconnected]

42. they always do that.

If they can't find justice through abiding by the law, why abide by it.

It's typical of the poorer people in this country to do that.

Some people who have watched the news for years expect that now.

If the poor people sense an injustice they throw out the law. Do you think they are going to change?

I think the system needs to change and accomodate that. The local gov should have handled the neo-nazis marching though better. Obvioulsy these people in that neighborhood did not perceive it as free speech.

[greygandalf]

45. OK, if "they always do that"

Its the incorrect thing to do.

[superconnected]

49. It's not the correct thing do do.

That logic is bad.

Wish I were dealing with people who could think with good logic...

but anyway, since the response the police got is not uncommon, it seems like they should have expected it before hand and planned better.

Letting people all know free speech was going to happen and a neo-nazi (hate) group was going to march through their neighborhood.

[tx_dem41]

46. "They always do that" ...."Its typical of the poorer people in this....

country to do that"

Huh....racism and classism all thrown into one post.

Wow...

[superconnected]

47. Turn it around how you want. That's all you are doing is twisting what

I said.

I'll cite the florida and La riots. And since I'm in seattle, I'll cite the Seattle riots - which were predominately middle class and white.

It's usually the poorer people who burn down their own neighborhoods though when they recieve an injustice from the law. Not always.

If you have followed the news at all in the last 10-30 years, it's common for this kind of incident to happen. It usually follows an injustice made to a class of people.

[tx_dem41]

48. I have higher expectations for ALL people...

you don't. I'll call it as I see it.

Who is that in your avatar?

[superconnected]

51. if you don't follow the news why would you follow literature.

I have a higher expectation for all people too. Including yourself.

I am not saying it's okay to do what these people did. I cited in my original post that they should have followed legal means of protest.

I am saying that their response was not surprising. And it doesn't make them altogether bad. I applaud them for acting when they feel an injustice. They just acted wrongly.

[greygandalf]

52. It's not ok but you applaud it

I don't like the way that sounds. Saying it was not surprising is pre-judging them. It is idiotic to destroy your own city. So if I connect the two. You are not surprised they were idoitic. Now its a racist statement. I was surprised.

[superconnected]

53. gee if you could handle two thoughts.

I said I applaud that the respond when they feel an injustice is made.

I also said that I don't agree how they responded.

I guess my college education that included a logic class made me able to see these two sentences can both be true.

[superconnected]

55. and since I'm dealing with people who can't understand

how both sentences can be true, I'm going back to the world chess server now to play people only in my rating range.

C-ya.

[greygandalf]

56. personal insult angle, always a last ditch effort.

Sorry I weigh the carnage more than any noble thoughts they had.

It takes a bit longer to recover from that, especially when its a poor area.

[superconnected]

58. You're correct, I'm giving up on you.

Your conclusions begged me to leave. I'd invite you over to ics and challenge you but frankly, I refuse anyone under 1800 right now.

[shenmue]

60. Excuse me, but did we win the Revolution by asking the British nicely?

And you were the one insulting me. But I'm off this thread. I can see those who have appointed themselves the only peace people allowed to speak are actually the most dismissive. Let's all sing happy songs and try to make everybody feel better, and then go home, huh? That'll work!

There is a difference between peace and weakness.

I know which one I don't want.

[greygandalf]

61. The British had power. These nazis didn't.

Also its ideal to win in non-violent ways, just not always possible. People don't die. Also I don't recall insulting you. If I did I apologize.

[Loonman]

66. Speaking of the British

Nobody seems to give a shit when the Orange order march through Catholic areas in N.A., and they do it specifically in Catholic areas to cheese off the Catholics. They do it several times, every year, too.

[goforit]

67. Jack Ford must be proud to be a neo nazi himself.

This is the only explanation

[Dave Reynolds]

106. I think he perhaps just understands the 1st amendment.

It would be nice if we all did.

[Blue Diadem]

111. In that case, Mr. Ford would be the first black neo-nazi.

He said at his latest press conference that the neo-nazi's already want to come back and he will try legal avenues to prevent that..although he doesn't know if it will work.

[hogwyld]

78. They are crap

Groups like these should not even be tolerated! I would love to oulaw them on hate and incitement charges. Banish them to Africa or Israel, and see how long their evil views last. Free speech has with it, responsibilities just like you can't yell fire in a movie theater, you can go into neighborhoods where there is a likelyhood of confrontation.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. Now, now

Go read the Bill of Rights, maybe out loud, have a nice bagel, maybe with a schmeer, calm down, and remember that free speech is a very important part of being an American.

The Bill of Rights thing is really important, though. You should read it.

[CatholicEdHead]

102. I hate Ohio Nazis

/Blues Brothers

[William Bloode]

108. The Nazis got exactly what they wanted.

This is perfect for them. The whole scene makes the black folks look bad. For the Nazis this action will just be used by them to try to prove their point that blacks are animals.

They should have greeted them on the streets will flowers, or just shut the doors till they left. Greeting them with flowers would/could have gotten them some positiive publicity. Shutting their doors and ignoring them till they left would have denied the Nazis any publicity by making it a non event.

I have no doubt that the whole Katrina debacle fed the anger. I also am quite sure it was just a couple dumb asses that started the whole thing. A couple 1/2 whits give the whole black community a black eye.

[messiah]

112. "The Nazis got exactly what they wanted."

Yeah I agree, here in Toledo everyone I know agreed that the gangs did what the Nazis wanted.
The march shouldn't have been routed in one of Toledo's poorest and roughest neighborhoods either, just asking for trouble.
The Nazis plan to come back here soon with six bus loads of Nazi filth.

[Blue Diadem]

113. Hey neighbor..I'm south of you

Lived in Toledo for 12 yrs.

IMO, if they had to allow the Nazi's a venue, it should have been closed like the KKK thing back in the 90's..somewhere where they wouldn't be walking through the streets. I heard Ford say today at the news conference that the Nazi's changed their plans from what they originally agreed to with the city. Did you hear anything about that? He didn't elaborate..or I missed it..just wondering what their original agreement was.

[TOhioLiberal]

114. A Toledo perspective...

I feel that a few things need to be addressed. As a lifelong resident of Toledo I feel a few things need to be pointed out.

1. The Nazis did not get to march. A half hour into their rally they were told to get out of the area or face arrest.

2. The mayor is African American, so I hardly think that he is a Nazi sympathizer. Although stranger things have happened. :shrug:

3. There is plenty of blame to go around--from the Nazis themselves, to the city's handling of the event, to the protesters that started the riot.

4. Toledo was not in chaos for two days. There was a curfew for Saturday and Sunday nights for pedestrians.


My 2 credits worth: The Nazis had the right to spew their 'message'. The protesters (rioters) played right into their (the nazi's) hands. Now they can say, 'See? Toledo has a race problem.' IMO, they should have been ignored.

The city should have done what they now say they will do should the situation arise again, which is not allow them into the neighborhoods.

[Hobarticus]

117. Out of all the opinions on this thread, yours matters most.

Thanks, seriously. I thought DU had lost its mind for awhile.

[rucky]

121. Even if it's true, you don't go out and say it.

unless you don't want to get re-elected.