ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 08/01/2014 05:57 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Regional
California Wildfire Forces Hundreds to Evacuate
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think the U.S. should do more to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine?
  Latest Events
  5.811 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/15/2005 10:08 PM ID: 50719 Permalink   

Violence Erupts at Ohio Neo-Nazi Demonstration

 

Toledo, Ohio saw a planned protest erupt in violence today by residents hostile to the protestors. Bill White, spokesman for the group billing itself as "America's Nazi Party," blames police for detouring their march past a counter-demonstration.

Residents had been pelting the Nazis with bottles and rocks, but turned their rage on the police and surrounding community. Windows in cars and buildings were smashed as looting commenced. When this began, the Nazis retreated to their headquarters.

"The crowd was very...extremely agitated at the police... for [making arrests in] the community when they should be doing this to the Nazis," photographer Brian Jagodzinski said. The Nazis marched for claims of black gangs bothering white residents.

 
  Source: www.cnn.com  
    WebReporter: momentofclarity Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  60 Comments
  
  Another source  
 
http://www.foxnews.com/...

This one seems a bit more up to date. The CNN source seemed more complete, but this has some different information, a bit more on the damage, and state of things now.
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/15/2005 10:14 PM     
  correction @momentofclarity  
 
the link you tried to post was
http://www.foxnews.com/...
 
  by: theavenger8     10/15/2005 10:21 PM     
  lol  
 
Figures it would screw up for me too, lol...I think people can figure out for themselves how to correct the links, lol...so I won't retry
 
  by: theavenger8     10/15/2005 10:23 PM     
  good  
 
violence erupting at a neo-nazi demonstration? whatever happened to the days when nazis could preach hatred in peace? this story would've been much better if all the nazis were killed.

"the Nazis retreated to their headquarters."
this is the best part though. it's funny to see the "master race" retreating when the police can't protect them any longer.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/15/2005 10:51 PM     
  they have the Right  
 
to peacefully demonstrate. You might not like what the Nazis have to say, but in America they have the Right to say it. If the crowd that followed the Nazis were unruly, then the arrests were just.

And starting a riot because you don't like what your opponents have to say is a damn lame reason to destroy property and injure people.

Pathetic.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/15/2005 11:38 PM     
  @Dedolito  
 
in a country where people supposedly have the right to express their views don't you think it's odd that black panther leaders were assassinated in their own homes by police while these neo-nazis are being protected by them? any group which preaches death to minorities is allowed to express that view, while any group standing up against the brutality of the white super power is monitored and destroyed.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/15/2005 11:48 PM     
  Well..  
 
"And starting a riot because you don't like what your opponents have to say is a damn lame reason to destroy property and injure people."

That might hold water if it was a rival hate-group that started the riot. However, it was the general public that was protesting a hate-group that they feel is unacceptable..
 
  by: StarShadow     10/16/2005 12:03 AM     
  hardly  
 
firstly, the Black Panthers were a militant group, prone to inciting violence. This is not to say the assissination of leaders was just, but I would not equate a Black Panther Rally to what happened here in Ohio.

Second, The Nazi's are allowed their viewpoint. If a black group wanted to stand up to preach supremacy over white, more power to them. I would also point out that the Nazis in this demonstration did no preaching about the killing of any minorities, so I think your analogy is rather fatally flawed.

Third, I would EXPECT that the police round up and arrest any and all violent protestors on either side of the line, be they white, black, yellow, or red. Violent protest is not protest, it is a riot.

I also find it ammusing you think the some sort of Establishment was protecting the Nazis on this march. The police clearly did not want to but were bound by their duty to protect citizens under their care. Not that they reacted terribly quickly to qwell the growing violence from the anti-Nazi crowd.

And before you get the idea that I am myself some sort of white supremisist, content with the Establishment protecting my White Interests I have to lay down the fact that I'm not white and have been the target of white supremisist hatred in the past.

Just because I don't agree with the myopic and misguided beliefs of the Nazis does not mean thatt hey do not have the Right to vioce that opinion.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/16/2005 12:07 AM     
  pardon?  
 
"
That might hold water if it was a rival hate-group that started the riot. However, it was the general public that was protesting a hate-group that they feel is unacceptable.."

The general public was opposed to a hate group. They didn't like what the Nazis had to say. Hence they incited a violent protest that turned into a riot. How does my statement then not hold water?
 
  by: Dedolito     10/16/2005 12:08 AM     
  f*ck nazi's  
 
the black gangs don't care about the nazi's, they just wanted an escuse to loot and destroy property.
 
  by: tenarc   10/16/2005 12:16 AM     
  indeed  
 
as much as it pains me to say, the Nazis might have had a legitimate point here. They were protesting the City's apparent lack of effort in controlling crime and violence originating with the black gangs.

So they stage a protest, and like a self-fullfilling prophecy, the black members of that community (dollars to donuts the same gang members that the Nazis were marching about) form up a violent riot to "protest" the Nazi's march.

What does destroying a gas station, over turning cars, and burning down a bar have to do with "protesting" a Nazi message anyway?
 
  by: Dedolito     10/16/2005 12:24 AM     
  @Dedolito  
 
" the Black Panthers were a militant group, prone to inciting violence"

your view of the black panthers is extremely skewed. they were clasified as a dangerous militant group so that destroying them would be justified. racism was the reason they were jailed and killed. the same is true today when the government classifies any group that is against their agenda as "terrorist groups".

"If a black group wanted to stand up to preach supremacy over white, more power to them."

lets be real. i don't know what country you live in, but in america a black group protesting supremacy over white people would be crushed. once again i urge you to study american history.

"I would also point out that the Nazis in this demonstration did no preaching about the killing of any minorities"

okay, you also need to brush up on nazi doctrine. how can you even say that nazis dont preach violence and death against minorities? what kind of nazis did you learn about in school?

"I also find it ammusing you think the some sort of Establishment was protecting the Nazis on this march. The police clearly did not want to but were bound by their duty to protect citizens under their care"

once again, history is not your friend is it? the police have a history of involvement with various white supremacy groups. look through the history of any police department in any state and you will find an overwhelming amount of data of racist policies and brutality against minorities.

"They (the nazis) were protesting the City's apparent lack of effort in controlling crime and violence originating with the black gangs."

you side with the nazis alot more than someone who has been a victim of discrimination would. to say that crime and violence starts with black gangs is extremely ignorant and racist. crime is a product of poverty. if you want to combat crime you combat poverty. simply locking up black people to get rid of crime is as stupid as using liposuction to combat obesity. you need to start at the source instead of turning this into an issue about race. you and the nazis seem to agree that this is the fault of the black gangs.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/16/2005 12:55 AM     
  Let me say  
 
The WAR IS OVER!! It ended in 1945. That alone should of seen the death of Nazism but nooo twisted lower class white trailer trash decide it should live on in the next century.

I once whent into a white-pride chat room on Winmx to stir some sh!t because I hate those losers so much and one said to me "P!ss off, your just turning your back on your own race". Can you believe that? That little neo-nazi turd criticised me.

And another thing...no they do not have the right to protest..the neo nazis that is. I say if you can't protest for people's rights and against the government for extreme laws etc then don't bother protesting for being a 1940's spawned post WWII Nazi group whom only sees the Aryan race the purest of them all...and they should have a right to protest that? For God's sake use common sense please, we need more when anti-whatever sympathisers say that all should get the right to...give me a break, when you lobby and protest for pro white and anti-everything non aryan you don't deserve to protest..its hyprocritical.

Finally If I was the police I'd shield the residents and sit and watch...screw the Neo Nazis and their right for freedom of speech..they don't worry about their views on other religious and racial groups so why accommodate them??

I'm a Neo Anti Neo Nazi lol and I'd be happy to form a Vigilanti group with recruitment from Shortnews starting Monday :) Just kidding...'Cough' seriously monday 'cough'.
 
  by: Mr-Anderson   10/16/2005 03:34 AM     
  ah ha! Proof!  
 
That SN attracts hidden racists and hick ridden racists.

Why look @ Dedolito his comments seem sort of him...a lot like protecting the hate groups?

As for the black panthers...in all fairness if push comes to shove everyone has a right to defend themselves. So the big tough Nazi group couldn't even protect themselves from the generale public? Booo friggen hoo so much for a superior race...more like dumbing down the human race from all that s*hit talking thes nazi loosers do.

Clap* clap* for the public who took out the trash even if some of them got arrested.
 
  by: morph   10/16/2005 08:25 AM     
  @manil  
 
"lets be real. i don't know what country you live in, but in america a black group protesting supremacy over white people would be crushed. once again i urge you to study american history."

no sh*t. last time i checked america had a white majority.

it's sad that in america minorities dont have the right to preach supremacy over the majority.

because, you know, you can totally go to africa and preach supremacy over black people. unlike americans, im sure they would whole heartedly listen to everything you have to say.
 
  by: hamstertube   10/16/2005 06:46 PM     
  hamster  
 
You could totally go to africa anbd preach supremacy over whites though.
 
  by: lauriesman     10/16/2005 10:10 PM     
  @hamstertube  
 
"because, you know, you can totally go to africa and preach supremacy over black people."

actually, you can. it was called apartheid. read a book.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/16/2005 11:17 PM     
  Some people  
 
really get on my nerves.

Either theres freedom of speech or Bush can jail you becuase he says so.

There is NO middle ground.

You cant say your allowed freedom of speech as long as you say the right things, it doesnt work that way.

Agree or not, these people were having a legal rally, people used this as an excuse to riot.
You might actualy read something on weimar germany and realise which side is actualy more like the NSDAP.
 
  by: Domo1 MkII   10/17/2005 12:23 AM     
  Freedom...  
 
Freedom of speech is not an absolute, hate speech is just one of several things that do not fall under Free Speech.
 
  by: StarShadow     10/17/2005 12:49 AM     
  Agreed, Domo  
 
People, Dedolito is merely protecting free speech, which must be free for ALL. You cannot pick and choose. There are some limits, but nothing here indicates these people were trying to use theirs to incite violence against minorities. A lot of supremacy groups these days are careful to avoid that in their public demonstrations. Say what you will about their implicit message, but if you infringe on their right to free speech, or advocate violence against them, you're no better than that which you oppose.

I may not like what these people have to say, but they do have the right to say it. The people watching did not have the right to assault them (as satisfying as it was to hear about that) nor, obviously to riot. The racists, however, cannot be blamed because thet happened. They acted fully within the law.
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/17/2005 12:52 AM     
  @manilaryce  
 
You are everything that is wrong with society. I am not against you posting your views. I am against you twisting the words of someone else (Dedolito) to try to justify your argument and stoke the fire.

"lets be real. i don't know what country you live in, but in america a black group protesting supremacy over white people would be crushed. once again i urge you to study american history."

I urge you to read his comments and absorb them before posting a comment. He said if a black group wanted to stand up to preach supremacy over white, more power to them. Whether you think they would be crushed or not is irrelevant. Dedolito was saying that this is their right and he/she supports that.

"okay, you also need to brush up on nazi doctrine. how can you even say that nazis dont preach violence and death against minorities? what kind of nazis did you learn about in school?"

This might be the height of your word twisting. Maybe I should ask what you learned in school because you certainly didn't learn comprehension. He didn't say Nazis don't preach violence and death against minorities. Dedolito stated THIS demonstration was not preaching about the killing of minorities.

"once again, history is not your friend is it? the police have a history of involvement with various white supremacy groups. look through the history of any police department in any state and you will find an overwhelming amount of data of racist policies and brutality against minorities."

Once again, comprehension is not your friend is it? Live in today!! Maybe history is your friend because you certainly live more in the past than today. Dedolito was talking about today. Although, there may be some police willing to side with the Nazi-group, you certainly can't generalize the entire police organization because of ancient history.

"you side with the nazis alot more than someone who has been a victim of discrimination would. to say that crime and violence starts with black gangs is extremely ignorant and racist."

I just want to bang my head against a wall while reading your comments. Dedolito never stated the crime and violence starts with black gangs. Dedolito never stated that. READ! READ! READ! If you were not referring to Dedolito, I would certainly like to know who you were stating the obvious to.

"crime is a product of poverty."

Stupidity is a product of poor comprehension.

"you need to start at the source instead of turning this into an issue about race."

This is an issue about race and Nazis. Did you mean to post your comments about a different article because your comments are from way out in left field.

"you and the nazis seem to agree that this is the fault of the black gangs."

READ! READ! READ! If you don't understand something, ask questions. If you still don't understand, don't post comments.

I have never felt the need to post before, but the derogatory and condescending tone of your post caused me to lose my posting-virginity. Is my post derogatory and condescending? You bet! Don't the comments look very similar to yours?

People cannot seem to post their comments without being flamed. Everyone has their right to express their opinions. I will gladly read them. I may agree or disagree with them but it is a free world. Does that mean I am going to cause a riot on your street? Am I going to fight with police, start fires and damage property? The answer is no! I am not flaming your opinions. I am flaming the fact that you are twisting the words from Dedolito's post to suit you, making assumptions and accusations about Dedolito.
 
  by: steiny_33     10/17/2005 01:36 AM     
  @steiny_33 and everyone else  
 
okay, i don't have enough time right now to make individual arguments to all your points so i'll get my general point across. the thing that you're all missing is that this event is not an isolated one. the neo-nazis, the suppression of blacks, the poverty in america, all have a history which you need to take into account before spouting off about this particular incident. secondly, i hate the nazi doctrine (as does anyone else who's been confronted with it), but i do not agree in violence on either side. but to say that the nazis were the victims in this event is to isolate the nazis from their doctrine of hate and historical track record.

an analogy could be drawn to a slave master who is killed by his slaves one day. he may not have done anything against them on that day to incite their uprising. he may have even been kind to his slaves, but the fact that he is a slave master means that he is supporting an evil system. He himself is evil for dehumanizing these people, and an uprising is inevitable. You can’t say the slave master was the victim, when the slaves have been treated like dogs for generations.

you can shout about equal rights and that everyone should be able to speak what they want, but that is all idealistic. in the real world hateful words lead to wars and genocides. this incident does not exist in a vacuum. there is a long history that lead to what happened in ohio. it's easy for us to criticize those people for rioting, but it's their ancestors who were lynched by the same ideology of hate that the nazis flaunted in front of them. you can't taunt and taunt and not expect to get a reaction.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 02:20 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
So what you are saying is that America (USA) is A white (Caucasian) nation? is that correct?
 
  by: kinko     10/17/2005 02:41 AM     
  @manila  
 
Mate, chill.

You push for one right (equal rights for blacks) but then you say no equal right to free speech.

Good civil behaviour is required from all sides. Peaceful protest is allowed. Rioting is not. Inciting violence is not either. You are basically saying that blacks have been mistreated in the past so they can do whatever they want now. Equal rights doesn't work that way. With equal rights comes equal responsibilities.

You are blinded by your hatred. Dedolito has even said he is not white and has been the target of racial discrimination.
 
  by: jendres     10/17/2005 03:01 AM     
  @jendres  
 
"You push for one right (equal rights for blacks) but then you say no equal right to free speech."

that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that there are certain limitations we place on free speech which we don't place on these aryan groups. by blaming blacks for everything these aryan groups are perpetuating discrimination against them which impedes on their rights. when freedom of speech takes away the freedom of someone else then it should be censored. we can't march down the street cursing obscenities with giant banners that say "f*ck", but we can march down the street and yell racist rhetoric. there is definitely a higher tolerance for these hate groups than should be permitted.

"You are basically saying that blacks have been mistreated in the past so they can do whatever they want now."

again, that's not what i said at all. in fact, i said i don't believe in violence on either side. i don't believe that rioting was the thing to do, but i do understand it. hatred begets hatred, and i'm sure that the hate preached in the demonstration escalated much like this discussion has.

the thing i think most of you are missing is that racial discrimination is just as real today as it was decades ago. people are still being suppressed and even killed because of it. giving someone the right to spread racial hatred does have very real outcomes. if you take it lightly then you’ve never really experienced its effects.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 08:54 AM     
  No  
 
Were these people walking along seeing lynch the n*ggers?

No, they were protesting that the police were ignoring black gang violence.
Said black gangs then counter protested, by robbing severa stores.

Once you place restrictions of freedom of speech, it isnt freedom anymore.


About all that I think should be restricted is giving an actual order for someone to break the law, these WERENT doing that.

They were holdiong a peaceful protest which was violently attacked by thugs.
 
  by: Domo1 MkII   10/17/2005 09:02 AM     
  @steiny_33  
 
now i have some time to comment to you. if dedolito thinks i've misunderstood him then let him clarify it. it seems like you've twisted his words to fit your argument just as much as you accuse me of doing. words are often misunderstood on shortnews. My own are often twisted by others so i simply clarify what they've misinterpreted in later comments. if i've done that to dedolito then let him tell me. until then, different interpretations may be arrived at by different readers. once you have some points of your own that arent dedolitos (or what you think are dedolitos) then we can have a real argument.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 09:31 AM     
  more to the story  
 
Much of the anger boiled over because people were upset that city leaders were willing to allow the supremacists to walk through the neighborhood and shout insults, residents and authorities said.
"You can't allow people to come challenge a whole city and not think they weren't going to strike back," said Kenneth Allen, 47, who watched the violence begin near his home.
Authorities said there was little they could do to stop the group, because they did not apply for a parade permit and instead planned to walk along sidewalks.
Navarre said the riots escalated because members of the National Socialist Movement took their protest to the neighborhood, which is predominantly black, instead of a neutral place. "If this march had occurred in downtown Toledo, we wouldn't have had the unrest," he said.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 09:45 AM     
  the source  
 
the above comment was taken from this source which i think has a better understanding of the situation from the residents point of view. again, i don't agree with the riot, but it is interesting that people can just leave out certain details to make these nazis look like peaceful demonstrators.

http://news.yahoo.com/...
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 09:49 AM     
  Ironic? Pathetic? lol ?  
 
White Supremacists organising a peaceful protest rally about Police ignoring gang violence… said Police detouring rally past “alleged anti-nazi protestors”.

Protestors begin to get violent, Protestors then riot, Protestors then destroy property, Protestors then begin looting… while the White Supremacists have to flee because of the violence.

If you ask me, the “pathetic scum award” on that day went to the “alleged anti-nazi protestors” instead of the skinheads marching down the road. Congratulations morons, you made the White Supremacists look good, <golf clap>

Anyone got a link to pictures of the crowd? I’m… curious?
 
  by: koultunami     10/17/2005 10:23 AM     
  pictures  
 
there are pictures and i think a video on the original source.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 10:35 AM     
  nope manila  
 
steiny_33 didn't twist anything I said. Every line that he wrote was exactly what I was trying to say.

Today's Nazis are not the Nazis of the 1940s. THey are still a bunch of backward idiots, but they themselves are not guilty of any of the terrible crimes that their forefathers commited. Or do you believe that the son should pay for the father's crimes?

The Nazis have the same Rights of Assembly and Speech as every other citizen in this nation, as long as they themselves have not commited a crime. If they have, those Rights may be justifiably stripped.

Until then, they can peacfully gather and say what they will in a public place.

The onus is on those that would disagree with the Nazis's message to restrain themselves such that they do not become a violent mob.

Tell me Manila, was it right for the protestors to have turned into a rioting mob, stealing and destroying property that had absolutly nothing to do with the Nazis?
 
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2005 11:58 AM     
  Dedolito  
 
What a load of crap! So what your saying is, basically, because their 'forefathers' were violent nazis that this generation of nazis today are different and peaceful? Thats what it sounds like! And why the HELL should nazis have free speech! Maybe you like Nazi racists provoking hate in your streets, if thats the case, go and intermingle with them! Personally id rather shoot them! Inside the head of every nazi is an animal waiting for a chance to kill and/or beat a coloured man! Free speech my arse!
 
  by: know_your_rights   10/17/2005 04:39 PM     
  @dedolito  
 
"Tell me Manila, was it right for the protestors to have turned into a rioting mob, stealing and destroying property that had absolutly nothing to do with the Nazis?"

now who's twisting words? no, of course not. i've stated in just about every comment that i do not agree with the action these people took. you people always say that I’m justifying the riot. all that i've ever said is that these nazis were not the peaceful group you make them out to be.

"THey are still a bunch of backward idiots, but they themselves are not guilty of any of the terrible crimes that their forefathers commited"

this line shows me that you really are mislead about the neo-nazis. not guilty of terrible crimes? swastikas painted on synagogues, black churches burnt down, homosexuals, immigrants, and minorities beaten to death while their assailants yell derogatory names and you don't think terrible crimes are committed by nazis anymore? that's ridiculous. in california alone there are over 2,200 hate crimes a year (and it’s a blue state). violence based on race is not a thing of the past. in fact, hate crimes have risen more than 15 percent after 9/11. no, the son doesn't have to pay for the fathers crime. the son has plenty himself to pay for. of course it was a stupid thing for these people to riot, but in my eyes the nazis incited it by walking down the streets of a black neighborhood and yelling racial names with police protection. if the nazis were the peaceful group you say they are then there would be no reason for these people to be upset about them.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 05:09 PM     
  know_your_rights  
 
What a load of crap!

So what you’re saying is, basically, because the Germans commited some attrocities in WW2 as did the Japanese and the Americans, that further generations should be freely descriminated against? And the same with whites because they kept slaves? And the Spanish for killing off several civilizations? And the British for killing off a several thousand indians, aboriginals and Maoris?

Is that all ok with you? Because that's exactly what you're saying!

Free speech my arse indeed! It doesn't exist. You are deluded and brainwashed if you think it does.
 
  by: TheBackwardsman   10/17/2005 05:58 PM     
  @Manila  
 
The only person showing any sign of prejudice on here is you



swastikas painted on synagogues, black churches burnt down, homosexuals, immigrants, and minorities beaten to death while their assailants yell derogatory names and you don't think terrible crimes are committed by nazis anymore


Muslims destroyed the Twin towers.
Whats your point?

Should you be denied the right to vote becuase a person of the same skin colour as you within the past 5000years did something mean?
Or the same religion, or who lives in the same are, or has the same hobbies?

Of course nmot, these people did nothing but belive something, wether or not we agree is irrelevent, they didnt break any law.


Had these people been shouting racistinsults, they would have been arrested for hate crimes.

Your a sad littlwe racist who wants everything handed to you on a platter because whitey gets it for free.

Bullshit, wake up.
Thye whitye person who earns more than you, earns more becuase he worked his bollocks off.
Same goes for the black person, and the woman, they work, you whinge.
 
  by: Domo1 MkII   10/17/2005 08:54 PM     
  @manila  
 
"now who's twisting words? no, of course not."

Oh? What was your opening statement then? You said it was "good" that violence errupted. You approved of the violence and indicated that you were glad to see violence directed at the Nazi demonstration.

How is that twisting your words?




"all that i've ever said is that these nazis were not the peaceful group you make them out to be."

Was this particular grouping of Nazis, at the time of thier demonstration, doing ANYTHING more than exersizing their RIGHT to peacfully assemble while partaking in thier RIGHT of free speech?

No? Then why do you label them as anything more? They were not being violent. ANd from what I can tell, they weren't even being overly disruptive. The mob choose to react to the presence of the Nazis in a violent way. That is not the fault of the Nazis, but the fault of the people in the mob.

"this line shows me that you really are mislead about the neo-nazis. not guilty of terrible crimes? swastikas painted on synagogues, black churches burnt down, homosexuals, immigrants, and minorities beaten to death while their assailants yell derogatory names and you don't think terrible crimes are committed by nazis anymore?"

Blah blah blah. Did ANY of the Nazis in this gathering do any of these things during this rally? No?

DO you KNOW beyond reasonable doubt that any of those present during this march are fugitives from the law for haivng commited these acts in the past? No?

Then they were a law abidding group of people properly exersizing some of their basic Rights as given to us by the Constitution. On what legal grounds would you deny them those Rights?
"but in my eyes the nazis incited it by walking down the streets of a black neighborhood and yelling racial names with police protection. if the nazis were the peaceful group you say they are then there would be no reason for these people to be upset about them."

Words are just words. It is entirely upon the beholder to choose their reaction to said words. They could have responded in a rational manner, as I myself have done in the past when confronted with hate. Instead they elected to react basely. That is no one's fault but theirs.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2005 09:37 PM     
  @Domo1 MkII  
 
oh where to begin?

"Muslims destroyed the Twin towers.
Whats your point?"

my point, if you read dedolitos post, was that nazis still commit crimes. he said that they are not guilty of the same crimes their forfathers committed. i was showing him that they are. so what's YOUR point?

"Should you be denied the right to vote becuase a person of the same skin colour as you within the past 5000years did something mean?"

this is an utterly retarded question. you sure like to put words in my mouth. i've never said that white people should be denied their rights because of nazis. all i've said is that there should be equality. in earlier comments i mentioned black groups which have been destroyed for having views which could insight violence. the nazis obviously have hateful views, so why are they tolerated when a minority group with radical views is considered a terrorist group?

"Had these people been shouting racistinsults, they would have been arrested for hate crimes."

again, not true. the second source says the nazis were walking down the street "shouting insults".

"Your a sad littlwe racist who wants everything handed to you on a platter because whitey gets it for free"

first off, you need spell check. second, you are trying to label me as a racist when the end of your comment does more to condemn you of racism than it does to condemn me. you assume i'm just an angry minority who's mad at "whitey". i am half white and harbor no hatred towards "whitey" since that would be a bit self-destructive. your assumptions about my race based on my viewpoint are what is truly racist.

"Thye whitye person who earns more than you, earns more becuase he worked his bollocks off."

this statement is absurd and suggests white superiority based on social status. to say white people are richer because they work harder is a truly racist comment which denies any effect of racism in our system. it's social darwinism. in conclusion, i think you need to stop being so butt-hurt when i criticize the nazis. nazis and white people are not synonymous terms. if you're white there's no reason you should get upset about what i say about the nazis.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/17/2005 09:42 PM     
  @KYR  
 
I find it rather ironic that given your screen name you seem to be siding with those that would say the Nazis of this demonstration should have been denied their Rights of assmebly and speech.

"What a load of crap! So what your saying is, basically, because their 'forefathers' were violent nazis that this generation of nazis today are different and peaceful? Thats what it sounds like!"

Perhaps you failed to understand my point. Let me try again. It is not because they *must* be more peacful, it is becuase they themselves did not commit crimes against humanity. I do not speak upon what they might do if they were in a position of power, but the simple fact is that no one at this demonstration acted in a way that would necessitate the stripping of COnstitutional Rights. At this rally there was no killing of Jews, no lynching of blacks, no vandalizm with racial slogans, no destruction of property. Not by the Nazis at least.

"And why the HELL should nazis have free speech!"

Because they are American Citizens who have not yet demonstrated a reason to have their legal Rights stripped? i.e. commited a crime.

"Maybe you like Nazi racists provoking hate in your streets, if thats the case, go and intermingle with them!"

No, actually I rather dislike Nazis or any other group that have rather exclusive world views. That does not mean that these people do not have the right to their own opinions, and the Rights of assembly and speech.

Just as they have the right to peacfully demonstrate, I have the right to organize a peacful counter demonstration.

"Personally id rather shoot them! Inside the head of every nazi is an animal waiting for a chance to kill and/or beat a coloured man! Free speech my arse!"

Ironic.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2005 09:46 PM     
  @Manilaryce (and others)  
 
I really think you need to take a step back and look at this without the prejudices you are obviously operating under. Nazis and other extremists are obviously bad, but the fact of the matter is that unless they do certain things, you cannot strip their rights any more than you can that of any other American citizen, as Dedolito pointed out. These particular Nazis did NOTHING - read that again - NOTHING other than peaceably assemble. You claim the second source says they were "shouting insults." I read it again, and no, it doesn't. They arrived, marched briefly, and fled. The only violent actions were those carried out by the protestors, and as officials correctly point out, that is exactly what the hate group wanted. What we saw here is exactly why these groups have been able to continue to exist into the 21st century. Their techniques have changed to allow them the moral high ground in cases such as this. Most do not overtly advocate violence or even hatred anymore, opting for carefully chosen terminology and peaceful protest. Do some Nazis still engage in the deplorable old tricks? Of course, but like anyone else, they are innocent until proven guilty in the US. They did nothing to prove any kind of guilty here, and people like you advocating stripping their rights and YKR violent actions only allow them to continue what they do. Accusing people like Dedolito who defend free speech here, regardless of the ugly forms it may take, of being some kind of sympathizers is absurd. No one cares about the message these people have to deliver, but the rights by which they seek to deliver it. Sentiments such as those flaring here would, if codified in law, do as much to erode liberties as the Patriot Act.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     10/17/2005 11:38 PM     
  ha  
 
"my point, if you read dedolitos post, was that nazis still commit crimes. he said that they are not guilty of the same crimes their forfathers committed. i was showing him that they are. so what's YOUR point?"

What modern day Nazi organization has rounded up a few million Jews and has starved, gassed, mutilated, experimented and murdered (to name but a few of the Nazis of old's crimes) them?

Did a single member in Ohio commit any of these crimes during the rally? Have they EVER? What crimes can you prove the Nazis that gathered in Ohio committed beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the rally or at any point before?

Tell me Manila (and others on that side of the fence), is it EVER right to judge an individual based on generalizations made to their population? You jumped all over me when I said the gangs, who happen to be black, are one of the root problems that sparked this incident. You accused me of being racist and that I blamed them because they were black, and that such generalizations were improper. Never mind you did not grasp the point I tried to make, but the point here is that you accused me of something that you yourself are partaking quite freely in while making generalizations of the Nazis.

Simply asked, do you find it proper to judge and condemn an individual based on their class, or on their individual action?

Tell me, if it had been the local Rotary Club, or the PTA, or a local religious group, or whatever, had organized a peaceful demonstration to protest the city’s apparently lack of effort in controlling crime perpetrated by a segment of the black population (yes, black), would you have found that offensive and racist as well? Or is it just because the people in THIS march happen to be Nazis that this fact somehow invalidates their point? After all, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Like it or not, the black populations of America commit a disproportionate number of crimes when compared to crime rates of other populations. Yes, this is due in no small part to their overall social status. However, modern popular culture of Black America glorifies gang violence, drugs, and a mistrust (if not outright hatred) of authority. This does not help black youth in becoming productive members of society. It is up to the black community itself to change their way of thinking. Until then, crime rates will remain high and idiots like the neo-Nazis will continue to be spoon-fed material to turn into hate propaganda.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/17/2005 11:53 PM     
  @moment  
 
i must be hallucinating. did you actually write that i'm prejudice against the nazis? sure, i guess i can live with that.

"These particular Nazis did NOTHING - read that again - NOTHING other than peaceably assemble. You claim the second source says they were 'shouting insults.' I read it again, and no, it doesn't".

um, read it a third time. yes it does. here's the quote from the yahoo source i posted: "...city leaders were willing to allow the supremacists to walk through the neighborhood and shout insults, residents and authorities said." i don't know about you, but that kinda sounds like more than a stroll down the street.

neither you or i truly know the full extent of what happened before the riot. the story only covers the aftermath of the nazi march as does tv coverage. my point is that for this outcome to have occurred i sincerely doubt (given the history of the nazis) that they were marching down the street singing "michael row the boat ashore" in a serious effort to stop the violence. the statements from the nazi PR man about their peaceful message is a bit unreliable to me.

It is a fact that tens of thousands of hate crimes occur every year in this country do to these members or their ideology. the neo-nazis are a terrorist group. noam chomsky says that "terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious or other aims". if the US has marked Earth First! as a terrorist group then why the double standard when it comes to aryan supremacy?

in case you're unaware, the neo-nazis aim to create a "White Living Space". this means purging the world of all non-white people (mass genocide that'd make the holocaust look like childsplay). excuse me for being concerned about their views and believing they shouldn’t be allowed to convince young minds to join their cause. We do censor the radical left in this country, why not the radical right?
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 11:41 AM     
  @dedolito  
 
ha indeed.
you just about defeated your own credibility so there's not much for me to add. you really ought to let momentofclarity argue your case for you.

however i will spend some time to comment on one thing you said. "is it EVER right to judge an individual based on generalizations made to their population?"

you made comparisons in your argument between the nazis and blacks. you argue that it is not right to generalize either group. well let's get one thing straight. african americans are a race of people varying in as many ways as there are possible. neo-nazis on the other hand are a group of people who share a similar ideology and choose to belong to this group. so is it wrong to generalize a race? yes. is it wrong to generalize a group? no. i could generalize a group such as the nra by saying the majority of them are against gun control. would that generalization be unjust? neo-nazis CHOOSE to belong to a group whose mission is to undermine women and minorities. this is a group of people with like-minded ideas who look up to hitler as a role model. accusing me of being prejudice against nazis because i generalize them as a hate group is really astounding. if you belong to a hate group then i don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say you believe in and possibly engage in the violence it preaches.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 12:28 PM     
  please 9_9  
 
You know for a fact that every last Nazi at the Ohio demonstration wants to erradicate non-white life? Do you have a copy of this group's Charter? Until then you are still making generalizations based on a prejudical knowledge of Nazis in general.

And I can't help but notice, you yet again failed to answers the only pertinent questions:

Did a single member in Ohio commit any of these crimes during the rally? Have they EVER? What crimes can you prove the Nazis that gathered in Ohio committed beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the rally or at any point before?

By what legal standing would deny them the Rights of assembly and speech?

Might I remind you, you are the one that applauded the violence at the beginning of this thread. Do you still stand by that assertation?

The sad fact is, the mob of rioters made the Nazis look like the good guys in this incident. That's got to be some kind of record.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2005 08:43 PM     
  oh, excellent rebuttal  
 
Point out how I've defeated my own argument. Otherwise I'll take that to mean that your logic has failed you and you have nothing left to say.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2005 08:45 PM     
  @dedolito  
 
your comparison between black residents and the nazi party is what defeats itself in its apparent lack of understanding about both sides. i could go on a tirade about every sentence, but i'd rather not be called a racist again for criticizing the nazis. now on to the question you deem so important:

"Did a single member in Ohio commit any of these crimes during the rally? Have they EVER? What crimes can you prove the Nazis that gathered in Ohio committed beyond a shadow of a doubt, at the rally or at any point before?"

well dedolito that is an impossible question to answer given that neither you or i know the identities of the nazis. if you'd be kind enough to give me a list of their names i'll do a background check on each member, and we can end this debate about whether nazis have ever commited crimes or not. since we don't know the members well enough to send them christmas cards i'd say that we have to look at the group they belong to. the group is a terrorist group, and those who are members of this group have adopted a terrorist ideology.

once again i will state that i do not believe that the riot was a smart move, nor do i believe in hatred to battle hatred. to quote my first comment about this story is to take it out of context. it was a humorous and absurd take on the situation before any debate was posed.
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 09:14 PM     
  oh?  
 
“your comparison between black residents and the nazi party is what defeats itself in its apparent lack of understanding about both sides.”

So.. it is your assertion then that every white supremacists has a Choice in becoming said moron, whereas any black gang member is just a victim of his environment?

The knife cuts both ways. An otherwise innocent white child brought up by a hate filled family has the deck stacked against him. Just as a young black child brought up in a ghetto has the deck stacked against him.

I would like to know, in your own words, why you find it so offensive to point out the fact that crime rates in black populations is so high? Please, go on a tirade. Facts are facts. Ignoring them doesn’t help solve the problem.

“well dedolito that is an impossible question to answer blah blah blah”

What a cop-out attempt. So you’re telling me that you DON’T know of a single crime committed by these Nazis in the past, or during the rally. That last bit is the important part here. Given that the Nazis were literally surrounded by relatively hostile police that should a single one of them have stepped out of line, they would have been arrested and the demonstration blocked. Or are you going to try the tired argument of Protection by the Establishment?

Can’t help but notice, you failed to answer the final question again:

By what legal process then would you suggest that their Rights of assembly and speech be denied?
 
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2005 09:33 PM     
  @dedolito  
 
"blah blah blah. What a cop-out attempt. So you’re telling me that you DON’T know of a single crime committed by these Nazis in the past, or during the rally."

oh, you're so cute when you're wrong. anyway, the party these people belong to has been around since 1959. as i've mentioned in various posts before, there are deaths, bombings, and vandalism linked to this party and its offshoots. if you want to find a complete list of all their crimes do a google search. there are several recent ones across the country. might i also add that you are wrong in suggesting nazi crimes are a thing of the past. the membership to these groups and amount of hate crimes committed is continually on the rise.

"So.. it is your assertion then that every white supremacists has a Choice in becoming said moron, whereas any black gang member is just a victim of his environment?"

yes, everyone has a choice. although it was not merely black gang members rioting, it was the residents of that entire community. this is where i believe your logic is misguided since you're comparing this nazi group with an entire community of people, not just gang members. might i also point out that it was not just black people rioting. if you look at the video you will see all races. you seem to be pushing your own agenda to link race with crime. as i've stated before, poverty causes crime. you state it's a "fact" that black people commit more crimes. what you're missing is that poor people commit more crimes. do your "facts" show that rich black people are criminals as well? if so then race does play a factor in crime. if not then you're wrong.

"By what legal process then would you suggest that their Rights of assembly and speech be denied?"

free speech has always had limitations. there has never truly been unfettered free speech, and it is often blocked from groups the authorities deem as dangerous or terrorists. if it is believed that a demonstration will end in violence then that demonstration is often directed by the local government or censored outright. the nazis here went through an area they weren't suppose to go through and violence erupted. if the government had tighter restrictions on the direction of the march then the riot would not have taken place. now why don't you answer one of my questions for a change? why does the government feel the need to censor various groups from the radical left, but does not do the same to these groups from the radical right?
 
  by: manilaryce     10/18/2005 10:30 PM     
  @manilaryce  
 
"i must be hallucinating. did you actually write that i'm prejudice against the nazis? sure, i guess i can live with that."

Bias and prejudice are primitive modes of thought made necessary by ignorance. If you want to let that be your guide when critically discussing issues, that's your business, but you'll find little agreement from me. Furthermore, what I wrote was that you are prejudiced against American citizens. Either everyone has a right or no one does, you cannot restrict it for certain people who've done nothing illegal. Your view that these people are evil clouds that fact from your mind apparently, but they are American citizens with all the rights that entails. Chip away at that and you compromise the whole structure.

Regarding your source, that's the third source posted, not the second, which was my Fox News citation. Secondly, you're quoting "residents and authorities." Now, were those the same residents burning down the tavern? Do you know who you're citing here? No, you don't know who said this any more than you know specifically what was said. This does not constitute proof of anything. Not a single statement or slogan is quoted in any of the three articles - provide me with that and you'll sway my opinion. Until then, They're innocent until proven guilty.

It does not matter that these people were saying unpleasant things. You have no proof of their guilt beyond various circular logic. People got violent because they're Nazis and Nazis incite violence so people got violent...the problem is that there's no proof there. Don't you think it a little odd that no police officers have come forward to mention some of the incidents of Nazi provocation of violence (besides their mere presence), since the police are taking blame from both sides? The Nazis ought to be the first ones blamed, being easy scapegoats, and no one's saying boo.

You can espouse all the generalities you like about National Socialists, White Supremacists, and their ilk, but unless you have specific examples, they are meaningless. Let's look at your logic here, and I'll show you why it's nothing but biased:

"It is a fact that tens of thousands of hate crimes occur every year in this country do to these members or their ideology."

*These* members? Do you have their rap sheets? Do you know them? Do you know that those 10,000 crimes are committed by card carrying neonazis, rather than just ignorant morons? There are a lot of those around, but far few neonazis. It's all well and good to say, "Look at the state of hate crimes in America," it's another thing to pin them all on one ideology. So, do you have the figures to prove this, or are they guilty simply because there is hatred in the world?

"the neo-nazis are a terrorist group."

Uh, says who? Which Neo-nazis? You do know that there are many little factions of these people, right? Do you even know the message of this particular group, or is it enough that their kind all look alike to you? A quote by Naom Chomsky which relies on analysis of the message isn't worth much when you don't actually know it.

"if the US has marked Earth First! as a terrorist group then why the double standard when it comes to aryan supremacy?"

Because that's as vague a term as "terrorist," and we all know how well the US is doing for consistency. Is that really a model you'd like to follow? There's a lot of people they're not going after, people with established guilt, but they, like you, are pursuing an ideology rather than people.

"in case you're unaware, the neo-nazis aim to create a "White Living Space". this means purging the world of all non-white people (mass genocide that'd make the holocaust look like childsplay)."

An ignorant generalization, not all operate under RaHoWa (racial holy war) principles. Many advocate a separatist state, nothing more. Whether this is a public face or not is certainly worthy of skepticism, but if you want to have a discussion that consists of more than screaming accusations back and forth, you have to KNOW. I've debated plenty of them before, and unless they're open about genocide (very rare, I've mostly found it amongst rather immature teens), I avoid the subject of violence just as I do when I debate mainstream religion. You cannot judge someone by past sins of an ideology they subscibe to, unless you know it has not changed. Let's be clear here, you don't.

"excuse me for being concerned about their views and believing they shouldn’t be allowed to convince young minds to join their cause. We do censor the radical left in this country, why not the radical right?"

I'm concerned about a lot of views being taught to children, but we live in a free society, and people can spew whatever drivel they want so long as it causes no harm. There is no proof here that these people were advocating violence, save for a comment by an offended resident who found it insulting. There is no right to not be offe
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/18/2005 10:40 PM     
  continued  
 
"excuse me for being concerned about their views and believing they shouldn’t be allowed to convince young minds to join their cause. We do censor the radical left in this country, why not the radical right?"

I'm concerned about a lot of views being taught to children, but we live in a free society, and people can spew whatever drivel they want so long as it causes no harm. There is no proof here that these people were advocating violence, save for a comment by an offended resident who found it insulting. There is no right to not be offended, and nothing that says that if something you say offends you become culpable for the reaction of the listener. The censoring of anyone is wrong, and are you actually suggesting that it needs to be expanded?!

That, exactly, is what's wrong with what you're advocating. Hell, let's censor everyone until no one is offended. Or, we can let ideas flow freely and let ideologies like this die out, rather than giving them attention and justifying their message by trying to censor them and making it that much easier to censor the next message found objectionable.
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/18/2005 10:45 PM     
  still not getting it?  
 
“oh, you're so cute when you're wrong. anyway, the party these people belong to has been around since 1959. as i've mentioned in various posts before, there are deaths, bombings, and vandalism linked to this party and its offshoots. if you want to find a complete list of all their crimes do a google search. there are several recent ones across the country”

This GROUP as a whole may have individuals that have committed such crimes, but do you KNOW that the individuals attending THIS rally are guilty of these crimes? Or could it be that they are fed up with the gang violence in their city?

If it cannot be demonstrated that INDIVIDUALS at this rally committed the crimes you accuse the GROUP of committing, then you cannot impinge on the Rights of assembly and speech on the INDIVIDUALS. Unless you want to make the case that because *some* of their group have committed crimes, ALL of them should be punished. Talk about making prejudiced generalizations.

“might i also add that you are wrong in suggesting nazi crimes are a thing of the past.”

I never said such a thing. I begin to question your reading comprehension levels.

“yes, everyone has a choice. although it was not merely black gang members rioting, it was the residents of that entire community.”

Would you like to go back and read your sources again? It quite clearly states that gang members were planning to organize a violent counter demonstration.

“as i've stated before, poverty causes crime. you state it's a "fact" that black people commit more crimes. what you're missing is that poor people commit more crimes. do your "facts" show that rich black people are criminals as well? if so then race does play a factor in crime. if not then you're wrong.”

Again, reading comprehension is not your friend. I never said race had anything to do with pre-disposition to crime. Try reading more carefully next time. I said, quite clearly, that crime rates are higher than the average amongst black populations. Note this says nothing on individual predispositions to crime. Do you dispute the fact that crime rates are higher than the national average in black populations?

You want to pin everything on social standing. i.e. because they are poor, they commit more crime. I’ve said as much as well. However, you fail to address the issue that popular black culture GLORIFIES violence. Or d oyou mean to tell me that all the rappers out there flashing their bling-bling, glorifying busting caps in rival gangs and in cops, and defying The Man has no effect at all on black youth of today?

If the black community at large is going to better themselves as a whole, it is up to them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and reject the cromagnum ideals their popular culture embraces. The success of the black community today lies within themselves, not from handouts and concessions made by the Establishment. The playing field is as level as its going to get. There are imbalances, sure, but the system is already so exploited by the unscrupulous that we’re clearly into a state of diminishing returns in every social program I’ve ever looked at.

”free speech has always had limitations. there has never truly been unfettered free speech, and it is often blocked from groups the authorities deem as dangerous or terrorists. if it is believed that a demonstration will end in violence then that demonstration is often directed by the local government or censored outright.”

Wrongo. Speech is only limited when the individual(s) exercising their Rights incites violence. That is, the speaker directs his or her listeners to engage in destructive measures. Speech is NOT limited if that speech does not seek to enable violence. How objectors REACT to the speech is entirely up to them. The speaker cannot be censured just because someone out there *might* take violent offense. If this were true, no one would be able to say anything in public at all.

Authorities might stop speech short if objectors start to get out of hand, but that is not censorship, that is upholding the primary directive of any civil servant – to protect citizens. Even if that citizen is someone who you vehemently disagree with.

“ the nazis here went through an area they weren't suppose to go through and violence erupted.”

As directed by the police. That kind of kills your original argument that the Nazis enjoyed protections from the Establishment.

“if the government had tighter restrictions on the direction of the march then the riot would not have taken place.”

The “government” are the ones that lead the Nazis to the area that they did. Try reading your sources again. Furthermore, those same sources say that the main leg of the violence erupted AFTER the Nazis had already retreated. The Nazis never even made it as far as where the protestors were gathering.

“now why don't you answer one of my questions for a change? why does the government feel the ne
 
  by: Dedolito     10/18/2005 11:57 PM     
  Part 2  
 
“now why don't you answer one of my questions for a change? why does the government feel the need to censor various groups from the radical left, but does not do the same to these groups from the radical right?”

You didn’t answer my question, unless you want to say that simply accusing white supremacists to be “terrorists” (my absolute favorite buzz word of the day. Can you feel the sarcasm? Any argument that justifies a position by leveling this charge automatically loses creditability in my book. Everyone and his brother is stretching the definition of “terrorist” to fit any situation these days. I could just as easily call gang members terrorists. The communities that harbor them terrorist sympathizers. Even playground bullies are being called terrorists these days. It’s a bunch of nonsense. /end side rant) but I’ll answer anyway:

They don’t.

Both ends of the spectrum enjoy the Rights of freedom of speech and assembly. There may be isolated incidences of abuses of power (on either side), but there is no vast over-arching conspiracy of the Right to silence the Left. Michael Moore has as much freedom as Rush Limbaugh. The American Nazi Party enjoys the same Rights and freedoms as the Socialist Labor Party of America. The Constitutional Party is as free to set up a public rally as the American Reform Party. Members of the Communist Party of America can get on a soapbox just as readily as the American Party can.

Only when members of these organizations publicly seek to incite violence are they “censured”. For every instance of so-called censorship of the far left, you’ll find one of the far right as well. Waco ring a bell?

Skinheads have as much right to gather in public as New Black Panthers. Irregardless of what the group stands for, they are granted the Rights of assembly and speech until such a time that they demonstrate an abuse of those freedoms to incite violence.

You argue that these Nazis should not enjoy the Rights of assembly and speech yet you cannot demonstrate anything beyond you not liking what they have to say as justification of revoking these Rights.

I don't like much of what you have to say so far either. Does that mean I should have the government silence you as well? Of course not. Not unless you begin to advocate violence or other socially unaccebtable actions against me. Until then you are free to say what you will, where you will, how you will, and to whom you will. As are the Nazis. As are the New Black Panthers. As are the KKK. As is David Koresh. As is the Communist Party. As are evangelical Christians.

Only once INDIVIDUALS of these groups cross the lines into inciting or commiting acts of violence can they be "censured."
 
  by: Dedolito     10/19/2005 12:05 AM     
  @moment and dedolito  
 
okay, this story has put a serious damper on my social life. given the length of our comments i doubt anyone is reading this anymore besides us three. at the risk of dedolito saying i'm copping out i just really don't have the time to write a 10 page rebuttle. you've both made good points, yet i still contend that free speech does not truly exist. to have a conservative "all or nothing" view of free speech is impracticle. unfettered speech has never existed in any country at any time. crime, race, and all the other points of this story could be addressed but i really don't think we're getting anywhere. as a past victim of neo-nazi violence i contend that what they pretend to preach and what they do are two different things. i go to other sources to learn about the nazis rather than taking their own word for it.

in conclusion, it's been fun arguing with both of you and pissing everyone off. perhaps we'll be on the same side of an argument someday. peace
 
  by: manilaryce     10/19/2005 01:47 AM     
  @Manila, final comments  
 
"as a past victim of neo-nazi violence i contend that what they pretend to preach and what they do are two different things."

I'm sorry to hear about that, but tell me how that makes you different than a young white supremacist I spoke to once who justified his beliefs by a beating he received by group of minority hoods? He accused me of just not having the experience to relate, too. The point is you have to look beyond prejudices to see the reality of the situation, then form opinions on it. No one here is defending white supremacists, but generalizing about them doesn't help discussion of how to deal with the problem they pose either. That some lie is something we've all conceded, and no one is so naive as to believe them all peaceful, but being hateful or prejudiced and being violent are two separate things.

"i go to other sources to learn about the nazis rather than taking their own word for it."

Other sources like a psychology major with a special interest in prejudice? Yeah, been there, did quite well - fascinating field. I also find it helps to talk to people, rather than just demonize them. You can't understand and solve a problem posed by people by pigeonholing them.

That said, thank you for the engaged discussion. Our rights are, and always should be, contentious issues.
 
  by: momentofclarity     10/19/2005 02:20 AM     
  This is going to be either water or gas.  
 
IMHO Affirmative Action in jobs and colleges should be done away with.. If your able to get into the college or job with your skills fine.. but because the color of your skin is BS. If your not smart enough to get into Yale, Harvard or >Insert college name here<. You should have studied more.. If you can't get that IT, Accounting, >Insert Job Title here<, then your should have partied less. Nothing can be done about teh old-boy network (My father knew your father in >insert where ever here.<), but that still doesn't allways work. But then again I think the world is round, and Life is fair.
 
  by: CaveHermit   10/19/2005 07:04 AM     
  Dedolito is quite right  
 
Sorry to come in on the back of this "debate" but you are indeed quite right.

Moment of clarity quote ""in case you're unaware, the neo-nazis aim to create a "White Living Space". this means purging the world of all non-white people (mass genocide that'd make the holocaust look like childsplay)."

Whilst you may be correct at a (fairly low) level. do not for a minute think this is the viewpoint of all pro white groups, it simply isn't. These people were marching against black violence against white residents. Black, white, violence is ALWAYS wrong. However it only apparently becomes an issue when the whites appear to be doing it.
And if you think black organisations do not promote white genocide and its just a white supremicist "nazi" thing I suggest you look and listen to the attched links. Whilst I do not advocate or condone this websites viewpoint, I merely offer it to prove a point as I do believe in freedom of speech and listening to all sides.

http://www.halturnershow.com/...

http://www.halturnershow.com/...

I believe this guy is a friend of LOUIS FARRAKHAN unless anyone knows different. Note the applause from the audience during his rhetoric. Terrible isn't it and yet I see no white people rioting in the streets over people who openly advocate the elimination of the white race through violent means. After all, these people are perfectly entitled to free speech as much as the "nazi's" until as Dedolito says "they cross the line"
And before anyone cries "racist" against my comments let me say, its just not true, violence and bigotry has no colour bias - its always wrong.
 
  by: kuryakin   10/21/2005 06:58 PM     
  Damn Links  
 
The links above take you to the main page which is not where I was sending you - oh dear!

Please look at the stories marked "Video" ref. Toldeo riots and the link on the C-Span Black Media Conference which is actually the links I copied. My apologies.
 
  by: kuryakin   10/21/2005 07:03 PM     
  Missing the point?  
 
"...aerial video showed people vandalizing buildings and setting fire to a two-story building that apparently housed a bar, Toledo police spokeswoman Capt. Diana Ruiz-Krause told CNN."

"Most of the violence happened when residents, who had pelted the Nazi marchers with bottles and rocks, took out their anger on police, said Brian Jagodzinski, chief news photographer for CNN affiliate WTVG."

"Video showed crowds at around 2:25 p.m. using bats to bring down a wooden fence as looters broke into a small grocery store."

"...crowds of young men pelted the outside of a two-story residence with rocks, smashed out the windows with wooden crates, ran inside and threw out the furniture and lamps from the upper-level windows to the sidewalk below. No police were on the scene.

About 10 minutes later, the building's second story was in flames as a crowd of people watched.

When police arrived, they used pepper spray on counter-demonstrators and shot tear gas containers into the crowd, Jagodzinski said.

He added that his news van and a police car had windows smashed and doors bent back."

Is anyone in this discussion in any way saying that this behavior was an appropriate response to the injustice (real or imagined) of the Nazi rally? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole issue is with HOW the counter-protesters took out their "rage", not WHY.

Explain to me then why it is when whites (read: Nazis, white-supremicists, other dirtbags of this sort) take out their anger or hatred (wrong as it is) they take it out on the minorities - the very people they hate. However, when blacks take out their anger or hatred over some perceived injustice, the vast majority of them take it out on each other - in their own neighborhoods. Why is that?
 
  by: Gloryroader   10/22/2005 02:29 AM     
  @kuryakin, Gloryroader  
 
Actually, that was manilaryce's quote which I quoted in my rebuttal, not mine. And I'm sure no one approves of anyone calling for change by racial violence, any more than they would deny that such things are advocated by certain people.

Gloryroader, the issue is both how and why, with most people focusing on the white supremacists because the rioting being bad goes without saying. No one is saying the behavior is approriate, but some would seem to want to place the blame with the supremacists, who did not call for it. Of course, that is the "why," and the "how" is also interesting. I think that you're comparing apples and oranges, however - a spontaneous, mob-violence reaction such as we see here and organized, Klan-like actions as we've seen in the past. I think you'd have a hard time finding such mob reactions in response to speeches by the likes of Farrakhan so as to make an appropriate comparison. However, if you look at all mob reactions, my guess is that you'll find that it's rarely middle or upper class persons involved. Since racial minorities make up the majority of the lower classes in the US, that would explain why certain events would have a plentiful supply of rioters while others would have a more anemic showing. The lower class supplies the rioters, and there are fewer whites in the lower classes.

Then, of course, there is the social unwillingness to condemn minority racism also figuring prominently.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     11/02/2005 08:21 PM     
  My two cents...  
 
Man, there are some hateful people on these things.

It all boils down to one thing for me. Where the nazis violating the law at the time this occured? As far as I can tell from the posts and the article, they were not violating the law. As such, people (anyone, if they are black, white, red, orange, green) who don't agree with them, do not have the right to violate the law in response.

To quote futurama "I may not like what you did, but I will defend your right to do it to the death."

... the Bill of Rights does not come from the people and is not subject to change by majorities. It comes from the nature of things. It declares the inalienable rights of man not only against all government but also against the people collectively.
-Walter Lippmann

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
- Lord Acton

 
  by: tellgar     11/02/2005 09:52 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com