Being from England, London, we never got a group as extreme as the Klu Klux Klan because we invited many Africans over here to do little jobs that no whites wanted to do, so there is no real hatred between the two. However in the US they bought over black Africans as slaves so there is tension till this day between white Americans and black Americans. So my point is in America you like England have the right to free speech, but in the states they are more for the right to free speech, but would something like white supremacist in the Klu Klux Klan is a crime or do they have a right to free speech? If what they are doing then where do you draw the line for free speech. Because after all, all they’re doing is simply expressing their opinions and they are using their ‘right to free speech’ even though a majority don’t agree with what they stand for a big number of people still do and hold many of the same views they do.
Even though the majority think what they do is wrong and i in no way are encouraging their behaviour we still express our opinions and our ‘free speech’ that what they are doing is wrong so surely what they do according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is allowed.
Where do you stand on this? Do you support the right to free speech or feel we should be dictated? Or do you feel that there should be a line in the right to free speech and if so how far should the line go?
I think I speak for many in the US when I say that the Klan is completely wrong, but that they have the right to express their completely wrong opinions. Usually the line drawn is when the speech incites violence against someone else.
They have the right to free speech. A number of jurisdictions have taken steps to limit their right to free speech, but courts have generally upheld their rights to assembly and speech. When I was a kid a nearby, heavily Jewish town was trying to keep them from marching through town, but the courts said they had to allow it.
I believe they should be allowed to speak. The truth is strong enough to withstand a few retards shouting lies out in a town square. Anyone who thinks that allowing the KKK to speak will have an effect on freedom doesn’t have much faith in the strength of their freedom to begin with.
Well, to be fair to the OP, we don’t have a well-established group with as horrible a history as the KKK.
Of course, his view of history is…pretty damn off. And no hatred? Hah. The amount of crime here with a racist motivation is not exactly small. And has he never heard of the BNP?
They’re wrong, but that doesn’t mean that it should be illegal for them to spew their ignorant idiotic racist garbage speech. Not everything that is wrong is or should be illegal.
There are still standing warehouses in England where slaves were processed before being sold in other areas of the world. England certainly got their hands very dirty with their involvement in the slave trade.
Spouting racist ideas is not a crime in the United States.
Usually we draw the line at inciting violence or slandering someone. ie. I could say Mexicans were lazy but I could get into trouble for spreading rumors that Salma Hayak was a child molester. Though slander is for the civil courts not criminal courts.
Of course, his view of history is…pretty damn off. And no hatred? Hah. The amount of crime here with a racist motivation is not exactly small. And has he never heard of the BNP?
[/QUOTE]
It is true that england invited blacks to do ‘small’ jobs. I have heard of the BNP but they are not as extreme as the KKK in going around burning crossess do they? and i don’t know where abouts you live but i live in one of the most cosmopolitant corner of london and we all get along in a big community so i don’t know what facist area you are from but there aren’t a lot of race crimes in my area :dubious:
In the UK there is an offence of incitement to violence.
It can be very wide, it is not easy to prove, but, the racial aspect is considered to be a serious aggravating factor.
We do have the right to freedom of expression which is underwritten by the European Act on Human Rights, but this right is not absolute, and it is not absolute in the US either, its a question of where the lines are drawn.
The Euro Human Rights Act allows for a balance between the rights of the individual against the rights of society, so the right to free speech can be limited by, say, the Terrorism Act - which is where incitement comes in.
Added to this, in the UK, your freedom can be restricted by court orders if you are involved in,
1 Foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.
2 Seek to provoke others to terrorist acts.
3 Foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts or
4 Foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
The above are so wide ranging that they are likely to be challenged in the higher courts in the future.
The main UK racist party is the BNP, with the usual offshoots, some of which are pure criminal and appear to have been set up because the ‘mainstream’ racist party is seen as too soft, or as an outlet for racist thuggery that will not implicate the BNP.
Combat 18 is the most notorious of these, but that particular groups’ leaders and activists are largely in prison for racist violence and organising racist violence.
I really do not think a large semi political organisation such as the KKK could survive under our law as there links would be made between it and organised racist violence in such a way that the leaders would be then categorised as terrorists.
The BNP is extremely careful about how it skirts around the law, often not mentioning race in any obvious way at all, even so, high profile individuals within it cannot resist a bit of racist thuggery from time to time, and the organisation is compromised at almost all levels it cannot keep its secrets, there is little organised violence that can take place without word getting out.
Not long ago one of their senior leaders Nick Griffin was caught on secret camera at a meeting where he was advocating racist violence. He was charged under some public order act but the prosecution failed.
He has been succesfully prosecuted under the 1998 Public Order Act for something he published in an article and was fined for (i) incitement to racial hatred(/i)
These racial hatred laws are controversial because of their broad nature, it will probably rely on precedents set by Judge in Courts to actually make such laws workable.
This is the current state of race and religious hatred law.
This is meant to cover all forms of religious and racial hatred, from Irish Catholic and Irish Protestant terrorists, to the BNP, to Islamic terrorists, to any other group of nasties out there. None really worries too much about the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists in terms of terrorism, especially since they now have their own assemblies.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” --Attributed to Brandeis. That’s the best reason I know to let nasty, ignorant people speak their twisted minds. The more exposure the nonsense gets, the more people get a chance to denounce it, eloquently.
The KKK’s racial and religious hatred is wrong. I can’t even think of a word vile enough for the degree of wrongness of their opinions and their intimidation. However, I defend their right to gather in public in their ridiculous robes and pointy hats.
Invited, eh? I don’t seem to recall the gilt-edged invitation cards in any museums i’ve been to…
Hence;
And just because they don’t burn crosses on people’s lawns doesn’t mean they aren’t involved in all kinds of racially motivated crimes - and, being a political party, attempting to get their views made into law; a danger of a different, but still threatening kind.
I live on the border of Greater London and Watford, if you’re interested. I wouldn’t call it a “fascist” area. Seeing as you appeared to be talking about England in general, I was counting any kind of racially motivated crime; even if you just included London, it’s not like the list is small. We’ve had a couple of the bigones.
There aren’t very many free-speech absolutists, so I would say most people believe there should be a line. Modern incarnations of the Klan, as opposed to the ones involved in so many lynchings, generally fall short of that line. It’s infuriating that they exist, but a society where they were banned might not be great either.
Every right we have is limited in some way by government. The general consensus throughout American history has been a very liberal interpretation of the freedom of speech, and it has mostly gotten more liberal over time.
I think the government/law/courts are fairly clear that you can’t be arrested or prosecuted for something you’ve said unless it is a direct and specific incitement to violence. Or if it’s a matter of public safety (yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre being the most popular example.)
It’s also worth mentioning that the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t really exist as a meaningful entity any more. It reached an immense level of popularity, acceptance, and power in the 1920s and then was rocked by scandal after scandal that virtually eviscerated it.
There was a degree of resurgence in the late 1950s and 1960s in response to the movement around that time to end Jim Crow legislation, and the Klan (while still numerically small) was involved in a lot of violence around this time.
The Ku Klux Klan was like the central, premier group for white supremacy in the 1920s. Now it’s random scatterings of local chapters, with no national or usually even regional governing bodies or organization, the total members is just a few thousand in such groups.
Not that organized white supremacy does not exist.
Go over to the Stormfront.org (not giving a direct link) and you’ll see an ugly, more modern style of White Supremacy.
The Aryan Nations was “big” amongst white supremacists in the 1970s onwards, but anti-defamation groups have started taking the unique approach of litigating against white supremacist groups for their violent acts, and have successfully bankrupted the Aryan Nations, in fact a couple that was assaulted by AN members actually now owns the intellectual property rights to all of their symbols and etc after successfully suing the AN.
I’m actually not really sure what the current status is of White Supremacist groups, it’s far too easy to simply think of them as being extinct but they really get almost no play in the United States anymore, and there’s none operating as a political party that I’m aware of although I’d not be shocked at all to find out there is a small supremacist group doing just that somewhere.
Which part of Africa are you referring to?
The major immigration to the UK was from the West Indies.
'Many men from the West Indies had fought for the “mother country” but returned to civilian life with few opportunities.
Their sense of patriotism, coupled with the need to find work, steered them towards the UK. ’
As for no real hatred, how old are you?!
‘The riots of 1981 were largely sparked by racial issues. In Brixton, the spiritual home of Britain’s afro-Caribbean community, youths rioted amid resentment that the police were targeting more and more young black men in the belief that it would stop street crime. Similar riots followed in Liverpool and the Midlands. The subsequent Scarman Report found that “racial disadvantage is a fact of current British life”.’
‘Fifty years after the start of mass immigration to the UK, questions are still being asked about whether or not the UK can become a multi-ethnic society at ease with itself - or whether there is still a long road to be travelled.’
It is true that england invited blacks to do ‘small’ jobs. I have heard of the BNP but they are not as extreme as the KKK in going around burning crossess do they? and i don’t know where abouts you live but i live in one of the most cosmopolitant corner of london and we all get along in a big community so i don’t know what facist area you are from but there aren’t a lot of race crimes in my area :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
First, it’s fascist.
Second, go ask Ireland how wonderful and harmonious the English have been!
