U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge

[Aliantha]

You're a funny girl girlie.

[Aliantha]

tw, when you said before that I had changed my behaviour, what were you trying to say?

I don't think that agreeing on an issue with someone that you may in general butt heads with means a person has changed. To me it means that it's not personal, even if I may not like the way that person chooses to express themselves. It's obvious plenty here don't like the way I express myself either. Such is life. We all have to learn how to choose our battles.

[bluecuracao]

Uh uh, that wasn't Step 1. Hopefully that's all behind us now.

Freedom is freedom, do what you like and say what you like as long as it does not harm others or infringe on their right to do the same.
If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else, change the channel or close their door.
That is freedom.
Being told you cannot speak your mind, think something and gather with like minded friends is not freedom.
Europe selects who they think should have rights. They choose who are "good" people and "bad" people and dole out their brand of "Freedom" to each according to who they like.
The BNP, or more hilarious, some BANDS, LOL!!! are "Bad" so they get less freedom than others.
Others are "Good" so they get more freedom of speech.
The idea that this is one idea of "freedom" is bullshit. It is not freedom it is fascism.
But, I could care less, the Europeans chose it, they want it and they can have it.
The reason I brought it up is because it is a good example of where we are headed if we let down our guard.
That is why I brought it up.
I could care less if others think that their comfort is worth their freedom of speech, not to be monitored by the government 24/7 or right to protect themselves.... it is not my problem.

[DanaC]

The BNP, or more hilarious, some BANDS, LOL!!! are "Bad" so they get less freedom than others.

The BNP, much to my dismay, are an entirely legal political party. They can say anything they want as long as it does not contravene laws regarding incitement to racial hatred and violence. Laws were brought in to ensure that people did not have to right to incite racial hatred and violence, because we had a very large problem with racist violence and disturbances. We still do, but not to the same extent as we did under the older system, in which the NF (BNP's predecessors) led a reign of terror against the ethnic minority communities in Britain, as well as against any non-mainstream, left-leaning political group.

Even now, with our supposedly draconian laws, BNP speakers can whip up a rally of supporters, referring to 'ethnics' as 'cockroaches who should be wiped out, cleared out' do not actually face any sanction. The BNP has a paramilitary wing. It acts both within and without the law.

What happens, when the freedom they enjoy, extends to shouting 'Paki' and 'suicide bomber' through the letter box of a 67 year old widow, daubing 'SS' on her front foor and throwing rocks at the back window? Unless you can catch 'em at it, you can't prosecute. Incidents like that and worse are a daily occurrence in some areas. Racial tensions are a major factor in many of our towns and cities.

We had a lull, in this sort of stuff, for about a decade and a bit, things calmed down and the movement towards multi-culturalism was quite strong. That was when the NF had been effectively stomped down and (because any revolutionary movement necessarily runs out of steam as its supporters realise the revolution is not around the corner) before they had rebranded themselves as the BNP.

The American political paradigm, seems to be the strength or weakness of the rightwing, religious lobby. The European paradigm seems to be more to do with the strength or weakness of the far-right, nationalist, supremacist movements.

I am talking about free speech, the examples you used are assault and valdalism... but you know that. OT.
Try, if you can, to stay on topic please.
If someone wants to say they feel that the white/black/polish/russian race is superior, that is their right. If they want to use racial slurs, it is free speech. If they state they want people to hurt others, it is not. Pretty simple.
There is a difference between free speech, like wearing a swastika or Aryan cross and incitement to riot or violence and the difference is clear... at least to those who care about freedom.
Freedom is freedom is freedom.

[DanaC]

If someone wants to say they feel that the white/black/polish/russian race is superior, that is their right. If they want to use racial slurs, it is free speech. If they state they want people to hurt others, it is not.

What if by saying all those things that they are free to say, and by using racial slurs without restriction, they foster a sense of fear amongst the group in question? What if the effect of that acceptance of racism is to foster further racism, and lead to a culture in which an ethnic minority lives in fear of the white majority? At what point does their right not to feel intimidated outweigh the right of a racist group to propogate hatred?

How racist is America? Serious question. I'm sure it's come up before but I'd really be interested to know.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

How racist is America? Serious question. I'm sure it's come up before but I'd really be interested to know.

I think it is fairly racist, but also tolerant. I have spent a bit of time in Europe and I think they are more outwardly racist and less tolerant of people who are of a non-european ethnic origin. JMHO based on personal experience.

No one has a right to be "protected" from another's speech. You are making it sound like people have a right to be comfortable... to me that is nuts.
There is only one race, the human race, no two people are the same color.
I don't believe in more than one race.

[DanaC]

That's fine, neither do I.

[Undertoad]

At my workplace we have had a few issues with people refusing to work well with our Indian sysadmin.

She speaks with a heavy accent and this causes some people to not want to do anything for her. When I say "some people" I mean colocation facilities that we pay $1-2000 a month, partly for their help getting things done.

This is only a problem at 3 out of about 150 locations, so there's that.

They are all in the South and I refuse to find that a coincidence.

I have not noticed any specific white-on-black racism in a long time. I have noticed a ton of black-on-white racism.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I have noticed a ton of black-on-white racism.

A HUGE issue in the Military today.

[Aliantha]

rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?

To bad for us, but in fact the First Amendment actually supports them in this specific act. As long as they do not plan or spew forth violent plans they are good to go. Does not change the fact they are a hate group in the same vein as Louis Farakan and his Negro hate group.