U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's much the same here, Dana. Although the press has a little more editorial latitude, individuals or groups inciting violence and hatred, in both speech and print, are censored. I can say white people are best but not that black people are evil.

[DanaC]

*nods* I see. We recently had a case of a meeting held in a hall. It was a private meeting, just party members (BNP) and affiliate supporters. Two of the main speakers (the leader of their party and a young upcoming type) made comments and called for things that, had they been directed at a specific ethnic group would have contravened those laws. They were directed though at "illegals" and "ethnics". I'm talking about some fairly strong stuff here, if you replaced the word 'ethnic' with the word 'Jew' it has a ring of 30s Germany: references to an infestation of cockroaches 'and what do we do with cockroaches?' *insert noises of approval and some fairly unpleasant 'joke' comments here*.

The meeting was infiltrated by a member of one of the anti-nazi groups and a journalist. Charges were brought against the two speakers, but both were cleared in court. A lot of people were upset that such blatant calls to ethnic violence slipped through the system. Upset to the point of considering tightening the laws. Fortunately that impulse was resisted and the law is as it was.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's much the same here, Dana. Although the press has a little more editorial latitude, individuals or groups inciting violence and hatred, in both speech and print, are censored. I can say white people are best but not that black people are evil.

Of course you can. We have a newspaper in our county that is nothing but pure racism. That "black people are evil" as well as other races and Jews appear in it all the time. Perfectly legal.
You just cannot say it about an individual, that would be liable.
I worked at the publisher where it was printed for a time.

[DanaC]

Why do you not have the right to say suchthings about an individual? What is the rationale behind libel laws?

[xoxoxoBruce]

What paper is that?

The paper is called The Eagle. It is disgusting, I have never made it through one, but when I joined the Marines I remember thinking of it. Thinking that it even was one of the things I may die for. (I joined, but was discharged before shipping to boot. Paperwork is only on file, no more. My arthritis. I had already qualified for OCS if I did well in training. )

Liable is about a specific Person or Entity (like a business/club/etc. race does not exist, every individual is a different color and comes from a different place)

[DanaC]

I think perhaps ethnicity is a more useful marker in this than race.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm surprised, I never heard of The Eagle and thought they had pretty much cracked down on inflammatory written material.
I Can't find it on Google but your time reference points to a few years ago so I wonder if it still exists?

I've never met anyone from only one ethic background.

It's local. Pretty sure it is still around. I've seen the boxes (free boxes that are here and there).
The publisher is our old Sheriff.
What are you talking about?
Most of the writings from the old Klan, Order and the like are still printed. Mien Kamph is still in book stores. You can buy the CDs of the hate groups with lyrics that will turn your stomach. White Law from Ireland or Wales is really bad, the US groups are worse.
The Satanic black metal groups from some of the Nordic nations are VERY anti-Semitic.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Why do you not have the right to say suchthings about an individual? What is the rationale behind libel laws?

The line is always whether you are hurting anyone with your words. By speaking out against an individual, you have the possibility of hurting their career, social status, etc. But on the other hand, it is not libel* if you can prove that what you said is true in the individual's case. For example, if I said that Mr. Jones must be a thief because he is black, and it turns out that he actually has stolen things, then I cannot have damaged his reputation and am not guilty of libel, even if I was saying it in a racist fashion with no foreknowledge that he had actually stolen something.


*rkz - libel is a written defamatory statement; liable is an adjective and means to be held responsible for something.

[Shawnee123]

Pete: You miserable little snake! You stole from my kin!
Ulysses Everett McGill: Who was fixin' to betray us.
Pete: You didn't know that at the time.
Ulysses Everett McGill: So I borrowed it until I did know.
Pete: That don't make no sense!
Ulysses Everett McGill: Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The line is always whether you are hurting anyone with your words. By speaking out against an individual, you have the possibility of hurting their career, social status, etc. But on the other hand, it is not libel* if you can prove that what you said is true in the individual's case. For example, if I said that Mr. Jones must be a thief because he is black, and it turns out that he actually has stolen things, then I cannot have damaged his reputation and am not guilty of libel, even if I was saying it in a racist fashion with no foreknowledge that he had actually stolen something.


*rkz - libel is a written defamatory statement; liable is an adjective and means to be held responsible for something.

I have a serious prejudice against nannies. One of the few I have.

[Clodfobble]

You lost me. Are you calling me a nanny for some reason?

Net nanny, they correct people's spelling and grammar.

[Clodfobble]

Sorry, I wasn't doing it to be condescending. You're an educated guy and have expressed your love of reading and knowledge before. I personally appreciate it when someone lets me know I have something wrong, I honestly thought you would too. I didn't mean to nag.