how can this be allowed to exist?

[sabaku_no_gaara]

There are two teen girls who sing white supremacist, nazi songs who call themselves prussian blue and actually have some cd's out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia..._(American_duo)

I heard about hem when watching the documentary Louis and the Nazi's (on the M&B forums) http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...39898277591286 They sing parts of their songs, and openly talk about a video game called ethnic cleansing in wich a white man has to kill black people and latin peoples and jews and the Black people apparently make monkey sounds etc..

In A country like Belgium or Germany or The Netherlands, people would go berserk if something like this occured. Aren't there any anti racism laws in the US to prevent these loonatics from spreading their hate?

I mean we have skinheads here too, but usually they are just disgrunteled youths trying to find themselves and being drawn to some subculture the more organised are usually being watched by gouverment and police (Like those Belgian skins/ soldiers who wanted to commit terrorist attacks in belgium and blame it on Muslims they all got arrested before they could execute their plans tough, thanks to the gouverment keeping a close eye on any extremist groups) a duo like prussian blue, or a game like ethnic cleansing are unthinkable here

[Sosobra]

While what they say is utter garbage in America we have freedom of speech, the first amendment protects not only the speech you like but the things you cannot stand.

[Mikelus Trento]

The difference is that the word "freedom" means different things legally in different countries. I'm not trying to demean Belgium or Germany at all by saying that, but in America those girls have the same right to sing those songs as the KKK does in marching through the streets.

Perhaps the nuanced differences in what "freedom" means is the basis why America has assimilated Muslims much better than Europe.

[Cassy]

The difference is that the word "freedom" means different things legally in different countries. I'm not trying to demean Belgium or Germany at all by saying that, but in America those girls have the same right to sing those songs as the KKK does in marching through the streets.

Perhaps the nuanced differences in what "freedom" means is the basis why America has assimilated Muslims much better than Europe.

Inciting racial hatred is still a crime. Freedom of speech has limits, especially in America.

[Erich von Manstein]

I just knew some good would come of me perusing this forum while sitting in my Freedom of Speech and the Law class...

Inciting racial hatred is still a crime. Freedom of speech has limits, especially in America.

Inciting racial hatred is NOT a crime in the US. Inciting racial violence is a crime, but only when it passes the Brandenburg test of posing an immediate threat of violence AND there existing a good likelihood that such violence will result. The case mentioned by the thread start would not pass this test and, thus, is protected by the First Amendment. For a more recent and applicable case, there was a 1992 incident in which two youths, after listening to Ice-T's song "Cop Killer," went out and killed two cops. Ice-T could not be held liable for those crimes; while his song may have resulted in murders, he was not directly inciting those very youths to commit the crimes.

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous for anyone to even suggest banning racist speech. There's nothing morally wrong with it (inherently or objectively), and it's absurd for states to legislate morality anyway. The only thing wrong with racism is that it's irrational, and if we are going to start prohibiting irrational speech, we've still got a long way to go ([we]'ve still got a long, long, long way to go; Elvis Costello FTW).

Personally, I think that countries should be punished with harsh sanctions from the UN for having laws like that.

I couldn't agree with you more. To punish speech because you hold it to be morally wrong is no different from the Catholic Church's punishment of immoral behavior in the Middle Ages. While a person may hold the individual belief that something is morally wrong (as most of us do when it comes to racism), we have no right to impose that set of beliefs on others.

But the line needs to be clearer, or else its open to exploitation.
Its not as if riots are a bad thing is it?

The line is quite clear. The standard mentioned by Sosobra (Justice Holmes' "Clear and Present Danger" standard) hasn't been used since the '60s, being replaced by the pretty clear-cut Brandenburg standard mentioned above. Additionally, it has been several decades since a white supremacist incited a crowd to riot, and then there were usually extenuating circumstances (war, for example).

[sabaku_no_gaara]

we have freedom of speech too but the law also states that any form of racism iscrimination and spreading of this is against the law, so this can't really fall under free speech now can it?

And Muslims have plenty rights here, most problems here stem from hate spread by the extreme right, and living conditions of concentrated immigrants in poorer inner city area's that have allways been known for crime violence etc..; the only thing that changed really is the descendance of the inhabitants, in those area's not the crimes and problems as tey are caused more by economical social issues then descendancy and/or religion.

take Rotterdam for instance, some areas had allways been a place where you had to be carefull, even before immigrants came there, people just tended to think only uncivilised working class scum lived there and that was the cause of all problems now people with the same problems live there but they happen to be turkish or morocan and suddenly the fact they are muslim and brown is the cause for all the problems? I'd say it's more about people looking for an easy scapegoat.

Even if one day all foreigners and non catholics are booted out, the same problems will still exist and people will just blame the factory worker class again

[Sosobra]

we have freedom of speech too but the law also states that any form of racism iscrimination and spreading of this is against the law, so this can't really fall under free speech now can it?

Some would argue that you do not have freedom of speech, you just have the freedom to say things that are deemed non offensive.

[Mikelus Trento]

Again, you are mistakenly thinking that the concept of freedom of speech in Europe should mean the same in America. It does not.

And I would also add that Europe's more restrictive definition of what freedom of speech is has not prevented major ethnic issues re: the Muslims from appearing in France, Germany, or the Netherlands.

[VALIS]

Dear Thread Starter
Kind Regards

Do you not think it slighly ironic that european governments use force,power and restrictive laws to stop something that they deem 'facist'?

Yours Thankfully
MM

[Atheist Peace]

Dear Thread Starter
Kind Regards

Do you not think it slighly ironic that european governments use force,power and restrictive laws to stop something that they deem 'facist'?

Yours Thankfully
MM

I'm pretty sure the only person who deems anything "facist" is John Spencer; what Europeans generally don't like is things they associate with fascism. (Probably no one will recognize the reference here.)

Anyway, I think it's ridiculous for anyone to even suggest banning racist speech. There's nothing morally wrong with it (inherently or objectively), and it's absurd for states to legislate morality anyway. The only thing wrong with racism is that it's irrational, and if we are going to start prohibiting irrational speech, we've still got a long way to go ([we]'ve still got a long, long, long way to go; Elvis Costello FTW).

Personally, I think that countries should be punished with harsh sanctions from the UN for having laws like that.

[Shaun]

Things like this also limit black peoples freedom to live a life free from racism and prejudice.

Do you not think it slighly ironic that european governments use force,power and restrictive laws to stop something that they deem 'facist'?

Examples?

[Kretchfoop]

Things like this also limit black peoples freedom to live a life free from racism and prejudice.
...

There are militant black groups that preach hate towards whites and others, they're just not as prominent. It's a two way street.

[Shaun]

There are militant black groups that preach hate towards whites and others, they're just not as prominent. It's a two way street.

Your acting as if I fully support these, I dont, both should be banned.

[Kretchfoop]

Your acting as if I fully support these, I dont, both should be banned.

I assumed no such thing, sorry if it came out that way. Anyways, as long as they don't directly harm anyone I'm ok with it. Not necessarily because I think they should be able to speak such garbage but because I'm not a big fan of government regulation on such matters. The way I see if you start banning offensive speech like this and you make it much easier to ban other things as well.

[Shaun]

I assumed no such thing, sorry if it came out that way. Anyways, as long as they don't directly harm anyone I'm ok with it. Not necessarily because I think they should be able to speak such garbage but because I'm not a big fan of government regulation on such matters. The way I see if you start banning offensive speech like this and you make it much easier to ban other things as well.

But when such speech is openly said, its inevitable that more harm will come, from both sides. The racial abuse receivers wont be happy about it either, thus are somewhat likely to attack the perpetrators. If its banned, then we dont have to worry about it. And what other things are easier to ban?

[Syron]

To be fair, afaik America does have limits on freedom of speech, i'm pretty sure incitement to racial hatred (or something similar) is a crime.

I prefer America's way of doing it, If you let the wacko's speak they'll usually do a good job of discrediting themselves entirely.

If you start moderating what people say it's a spiral that can only lead to full blown censorship.

[Sosobra]

Things like this also limit black peoples freedom to live a life free from racism and prejudice.



Examples?

So we just ban all speech thats offensive. Wacko fundamentalist find taking gods name in vain abhorrent should we ban that. You ban one things and makes it easier to ban others.

This thread, European laws that prohibit speech.

[Shaun]

So we just ban all speech thats offensive. Wacko fundamentalist find taking gods name in vain abhorrent should we ban that. You ban one things and makes it easier to ban others.

Ban all speech thats racially offensive, yes, racism is, or should be, forgotten about now. We dont need it being stirred up. I see no reason to allow racism to be legal.

[Sosobra]

Ban all speech thats racially offensive, yes, racism is, or should be, forgotten about now. We dont need it being stirred up. I see no reason to allow racism to be legal.

Governments should not be allowed to censor what people say in terms of personal feelings, regardless of stupid and or misguided they are.

Political speech is easier to ban, Religious speech and so on . Its a slippery slope which results in governments using Draconian measures to keep people in line. As history shows when given an inch governments (the world over) take a mile.

[Shaun]

Governments should not be allowed to censor what people say in terms of personal feelings, regardless of stupid and or misguided they are.

Even when this could lead to wide spread discontent and maybe even rioting?