-28 votes

Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody here is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known Neo-Nazis and Stormfront recruiters post here?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, I've seen Neo-CONS post here, and the only difference...

...between the two is the name.

Neo-CONS pretend to be "defending the country" while desiring to kill every Muslim or Arab they possibly can, by using a military (our in this case).

How is their idea of mass-murder really any different than Neo-Nazis?

Besides, I don't believe in censorship on a free-minded site like this.

We the readers will figure out who's who, and we'll let them know our minds accordingly.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

No, they should not be allowed to post here.

If it were my website, I'd ban them.

And FYI, the people crying censorship are mistaken. This is Michael N's private property and he is perfectly within his rights to ban anyone for any reason whatsoever, just as you have an absolute right to decide who you allow to enter your home.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Please Explain to Me the

'Israeli Art Students'
issue related to the events of september 2001

is it better to simply stop asking pesky questions?
so as not to be labeled???

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

This is what I mean.....

What the H*LL do "Israeli Art Students" and 9/11 have to do with this topic?

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3284720
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3284765
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3284723

Why even bring it up in this context?

Why tie this topic to Israelis or Jews?

I know. I know. You are a "truth seeker". Whatever.

You are one of the ones the Op was talking about.

Tom Mullen's picture

It's not censorship on private property

"Censorship" is only an evil when perpetrated by the government. Neo-nazis should be allowed to express their opinions on their own or on public property, but there is no free speech issue if DP bans neo-nazi speech. I think DP should ban neo-nazi speech, which is just an exercise of its own rights and would use the peaceful method of ostracization to fight horrible ideas.

Let me explain this to you

Let me explain this to you very simply... IT'S FREEDOM, NOT FREEDUMB!

Hate and racism is not freedom, it's evil.

Neo-nazis are scum, losers, degenerates and probably suffer from small penises--why else could you spend your life hating so much???

Yes. Final word.

Next...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

You draw the line at threats.

You draw the line at threats. Ideas are not threats.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

Yes

and they must wear a scarlet letter.

funny i was thinking ballet slippers and pink tutus

maybe we need to slow down, take a step back and talk about costuming possibilities.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

I meant

only the letter, .... and combat boots.

We can do both

Red letter on pink tutu and we can swap combat boots for the slippers if we throw in tiaras.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

I don't know

what my "label" would have been 2 years ago but I know I've changed my thinking quite a bit since I've been here. I've read things that I thought I agreed with then read some more and had real "OHHHHH" moments when another poster had an opposing viewpoint.

Garnet
Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Confused by your metonymy

What is a neo-nazi? Is it a person who belong to a groups which associates itself with that label or is it a point of view expressed in form postings? It's my understanding that group labeling is irrelevant and the only thing which matters is the contents of form postings. So "Yes" to all neo-nazi's who make interesting, relevant, and respectful forum posts. "No" if the form posts contains hate, division, baiting, trolling, etc...

Should the ADL or SPLC be

Should the ADL or SPLC be able to post crap on the Daily Paul pretending to be Neo Nazis?

I rest my case.

Be Your Own Media!!!

I don't get your case

American Defense League and Southern Poverty Law Center post here pretending to be neo-nazis? Why would they pretend to be a Neo-nazi?

Why would they post here?

Doing double time for the FBI and NSA?

Want to start a witch hunt?

Sounds like a fruitless and bad idea.

People should be dealt with on an individual basis.

For instance, suppose a racist type came here and began learning about our philosophy and changed his or her stripes?

In general, collectivism is not a good idea.

Wasnt a witch hunt

And was dealing with a specific person.

Subsequently that specific person has been banned. In general I think the whole thing was very good form.

Séamusín

The post is general

...

Would you rather the post be entitled:

"D-503 is a racist and needs to be kicked off the DP" ?

Séamusín

Why do so many US citizens

not GET the 1st amendment?
"Freedom of speech" was never about being rude, bad mouthing, or cart blanch hate speech.
Your founding fathers made the 1st so that you could speak out about your elected leaders, your Government, without fear of being hung or beheaded, as what happened in Britain when people complained or spoke out about their "God Given" rulers...no matter how atrocious their behavior, or wasteful their spending.
I hear folks bleat on about the 1st all the time, yet they have no real concept of it, how it works, or how it is suppose to work.
If the citizens of the US used the 1st PROPERLY, they could overthrow their corrupt governors.

The 1st was about the republican form of government

The 1st Amendment circumscribes the lawmaking power of Congress, not that of the States. The States retained the power to do all of the things Congress is barred from doing by the 1st. The idea was that while restrictions on speech may indeed be warranted, it is a difficult question that should not have a singular answer. It's about preserving the republican form of government, and preventing the central government from doing all the kinds of things that sovereign states could do. It's about blocking nationalism.

http://www.dailypaul.com/304821/states-can-establish-religio...

sounds like

you don't have a very complete concept either. The first amendment is incompatible with the concept of "hate speech" laws, and protects those who are rude or who "bad mouth" others.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

The 1 st

was more than just talking about the gov,and the elected.
I have the right and the ability to say what I want,to whom I want
and it does not matter if it an inconvenience to hear.
And it certainly doesn't matter if one is bothered by what is said
Nice way to spin it into a politicians form of speech

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

But how can it be a "right"

if what "you" say is rude, derogatory, inflammatory, pornographic or just plain hurtful and spiteful?
If your "rights" were based on Biblical principle, and "you" (as a nation) have tossed the Bible, and its teachings, will those rights then work against you, and do you still even have them? How can you have "rights" if you don't have the moral principles to keep them in check?
(these are questions, not accusations, and the word "you" is not a personal "you")

Then the other person

needs to get some "balls" and confront! Grasp your defenses!

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Rights are Inherent to One's Constitution

Rights are inherent to one's constitution. They are not "permission" to act. Rights exist in a person, because the person exists. Morality becomes relevant in the issues of willingness, "Free Will", to assert Rights and to accept consequences.

Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment I restricts the powers of Congress, preventing abridgment of already existing freedoms.
Amendment I does not give permissions.

The Bill of Rights, intended to prevent misconstruction and abuse of Constitutional powers, was adopted to declare and restrict legislative abridgment of specific existing freedoms, which are recognized as inherent to each individual.

In other words, the Bill of Rights was adopted to restrict the capabilities of immoral, would-be tyrants.

deacon's picture

Well who defines morals?

AS far as biblical? It does creator also,but just what/whom is that? IDK
What I do know (maybe) is that no man can stand above another,by this I mean
No man has a greater worth,no man has the right or the authority over another man,and none are more important than I. I was given a mouth,and the words to use,does another have any right to say to me(these words are bad,these are banned,or these words will keep you of heaven,or whatever?)
Men makes the words bad they want bad,does it necessarily mean they are?
the bible uses the word ASS,this same word was cited as being BAD...by man
Now just because I can,doesn't mean I will or plan to
Your last paragraph was totally UN-necessary (to me),you have been here long enough for me to understand you,and I don't get into that group think speak as others do
AS far as biblical values,I am not so sure it accurate.I do not know who created them words.What i stand on,others might not,and vice versa.I knew not to harm others,and to treat others as I want to be treated,this was before church,or even knowing how to read or write.This doesn't mean I always get the same treatment,as I usually Don't
Years back there was a movie out,the main character kept saying "yo Momma"
our young kids heard it,thought it funny,so started repeating it,some black folk here,heard it called the cops for racist remarks. the cops showed up,threatened us with CPS,threatened the kids (who were minors)
the main character I believe was Eddie Murphy.
These same black folk,before this encounter were calling us mayo,cracker,white bread,we thought nothing of it,name calling doesn't hurt
When this was mentioned to the cops,IT WAS NOT RACIST REMARKS,so I see that
as selective enforcement,but only for one side,and it is used to control one group and hold another higher

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

..and what you have written

brings us back to a full circle, because you have "rights" does that mean because you "can", you "should",?
or you "should" because you "can"?
Doesn't this boil down to personal morals?
The fewer morals we have on how to treat and respect other people, the more loose the 1st amendment becomes?
I am not being difficult, just learning.

deacon's picture

what you type

is thought provoking,and I never saw you as being difficult
I see it this way (so far)
No one can define a moral for another (laws do not create a moral society)
But it would think it comes down to (do no harm)
words can harm,but usually not
The more laws created to stifle peoples thoughts/ideas ect ect also makes it hard to communicate the same,So it seems to me,that the laws are done for a distinct purpose
how can ones who deny the const create anything of value,or create a society that values life,instead of devaluing it through creating things that are contrary to human nature?
True,it does boil down to personal morals,but at the same time,laws are created to deny them also,this i think was done to cripple a nation and its people

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence