Period 10: Neo- Nazis and Free Speech

@henry: “Is it fair that groups like the Insane Clown Posse are labelled terrorists but these hate groups are not?” Certainly not! But it does come down to public perception. People unfairly judge ICP based on name alone, along with their fanbase of the ‘juggalos’. I feel, very personally, that Neo-Nazis hide behind their claims of ‘heritage’, and use the fact that it’s a ‘culture’ to get away with their...unpleasant speech. Juggalos fall in the same category: a distinct cultural group that does not fit in with the common people of our society, but they’re judged by the cover, not the content.

To answer your question, I believe we should draw the line the second another person’s safety is effected. We are extremely privileged to live in a country that allows to freely express any contempt or joy towards anything, really. But something I keep thinking about regarding the use of the first amendment is that it prohibits the government from punishing you. It says nothing about how other citizens will handle your opinion. Suppose someone decided to attack members of the Westboro Baptist church during a protest. Wouldn’t they be simply “expressing their opinion”? At that point, no they would not; Because then it would be inciting violence even if they “had it coming”. However, I do agree with your overall statement. Unfortunately, we cannot yet rid the world of vulgar hate speech (i.e. the neo-nazis) because of our protected rights. It would a small price to pay, in my opinion.

@callihan I really like your argument of Gersh’s rights being violated as opposed to the neo-nazis rights being ~overly~ exercised. Morally, they are in the wrong but legally, they are entitled. As said in class, if we take away such expression, a hate group like this is essentially a time bomb. There is not end to terror, even on a small scale. Sadly, people have not yet moved passed their childish intellect and are stuck on spreading maliciousness. Ideally, the circumstances should never have taken place. You’d think that people can be decent enough to not be unnecessarily petty and hateful, but no such luck.

@weber
“The only thing he did was call for people to speak, but people want to draw the line for speech they don't like.”
This is a very interesting quotation. What I took from this statement was the fact that people are all about freedom of speech when it is something that is supporting their beliefs or views, but as soon as the tables turn they want to neglect freedom of speech all together. I believe that as nation this is true for so many of us, because we all have different opinions. I never looked at the situation this way, this was a great point.

Interesting point you bring up with Facebook being a public platform, I didn't think of that point. As well as that analogy with the prank call and the egging of houses, with two being a form of harm but one not crossing the line of being physically harmful. I agree with there never being a distinct line of harassment, it all just depends on the situation its based on.

m. ridgeway first off, i found your response extremely funny because it is 100% true. i agree with everything you said, especially the dangers behind putting someone’s comfort over the first amendment. the statement about the rap lyrics was extremely amusing, and it’s sad to say that would be the case if we went with Mrs. Gersh.

@mcdermott I really like how you worded your response. I had the same thought process about this issue. Although I obviously don’t think what Anglin and his supporters said to Gersh was appropriate, what they said wasn’t necessarily against the law. I am a person that also believes that people should be allowed to express their feelings without fear of being censored. But this is a very difficult scenario because it can lead to the actual physical harm of someone else.