WhitePrideRadio

[lame54]

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/kkk-pro-white-billboard-reignites-racial



A billboard in Harrison, Arkansas promoting a Ku Klux Klan web based radio show at whiteprideradio.com isn't sitting all that well with many of the residents there, who would like to do what they can to improve the town's image and race relations in the community...

[Fred Sanders]

1. Racism advertised is hate speech. Hate speech is protected by 1A. Outting racism and the racists,

mocking them and forcing them to shut down and shut up as a result is also free speech, and without hate speech laws it is all there is.

That goes for racist politicians as well, Mr. Scalise, and all who defend him.

[GGJohn]

2. i'm glad we're not like other nation's with their hate speech laws,

censorship is never good, the way to counter hate speech is, as you say, outing them by more speech and boycotts of their sponsors.

[mmonk]

8. What about hate speech on programs

called news organizations, politicians in authority such as those who write laws governing the people?

[GGJohn]

11. Hate speech is protected by the 1A and I would vigorously oppose any laws banning hate speech.

That's a slippery slope we don't want to go down.
As for the pols, vote them out.

[mmonk]

19. My interpretation is it was intended to be

citizen right of redress concerning government actions and press freedom. When I think of a sanctioned right to hate speech, I think of Nazi Germany or Rwanda.

[Cayenne]

96. hate speech is any given gop talking point

[freshwest]

84. That has proven ineffective, i.e. boycotts of Rush sponsors; getting a voice on CC or cable.

They've monopolized most venues and deliberately shut down or changed purpose of radio stations with alternative views. And attacked any kind of publicly funded venues.

I would like to see a black pride, brown pride, etc. billboard mounted right next to theirs so listeners realize that others are equal. And perhaps some micro broadcast stations with alternative views. Most of them are far right in my own experience searching for them.

[GGJohn]

90. That would be an effective counter measure.

What's not acceptable to me are laws against speech, that's a slippery slope to more and more censorship.

[freshwest]

91. 'More censorship?' I don't see ANY government censorship or denial of 1A rights, just billionaire

media owner censorship with their free market version of speech. They push the meme that paid speech is just as valid as unpaid speech, a guarantee that only the richest will have any media voice at all.

That is economic censorship, for want of a better term. The government won't restrict them, so 1A censorship doesn't apply. They have suffocated the mass of people from having a voice in that most important of freedoms, to make government hear them, and effect needed change their lives as citizens.

The problem, even with my solution of more speech, does not address the overwhelming power of repetition in a milieu that is 360degrees present to only represent the powerful. And white pride is a nebulous construct.

Gotta go.

[GGJohn]

92. I should clarify,

I'm talking about England style hate speech laws, that's unacceptable to me, and I suspect most of the American population.

[freshwest]

93. I was only familiar with Canadian and German ones, usually applied to Nazis only, AFAIK. We're cool.

[GGJohn]

94. No problem.

[GoneOffShore]

86. ^This^

Any other part of the discussion has been derailed by authoritarian ideas.

"Hate Speech" laws are NEVER a good idea.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Would you like us to have "hate speech laws"

so that the advertised website could be criminally prosecuted?

[Katashi_itto]

5. England has them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Fred Sanders]

9. Those Brits and Europeans, what experience have they had with hate speech?

How unreasonable of them:


In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6]

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]

[GGJohn]

15. So what?

What's that got to do with US law?
It's their country, their laws, but such laws I would vigorously oppose here in the US.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Not a student of history? Your choice. Europeans, what do they know about hate speech?

[GGJohn]

21. I'm well aware of what you're trying to do here,

and I oppose you and you're attempt to justify hate speech laws.
Those are the types of laws the republicans would love to have on the books, you sure you want to give them that kind of power?
The power to determine what's forbidden speech?

[GGJohn]

12. We're not England.

[treestar]

40. They don't have a First Amendment

Their constitution is understood, unwritten.

We have to handle it as Jefferson said, with more speech.

In a way it is better they are out there saying it. If they didn't, it wouldn't put things in issue to be countered.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Would you like the hate speech to continue?

[Nye Bevan]

7. I don't like what they say, but I defend their right to say it (nt)

[Fred Sanders]

10. "It", being what? "All black folk should be imprisoned and exterminated?" That kind of "it" is good?

You will defend their right to say "it"?

I will not.

We agree to disagree...

[GGJohn]

14. Absolutely I'll defend their right to say it, while at the same time, I'll condemn

anyone for saying it.
That's how free speech works.

[Katashi_itto]

17. Rwanada had hate speech radio too. It caused a genocide. It's no different than yelling fire

in a theater.

[Fred Sanders]

20. Except when that theatre is America, then we can always mock them later, as the embers fade.

[GGJohn]

24. This ain't Rwanda.

No where close to it.
And yelling fire in a theater is allowed if there's any evidence of a fire.

[Fred Sanders]

25. It is also not England...thanks for that info. Also.

[GGJohn]

27. Finally, you get it,

we're not other countries, we're the US where we have the right to say what's on our mind without fear of govt oppression.
The vast majority of Americans don't want other country's interpretation of hate speech laws and I would vehemently oppose what you are suggesting.
Even here on DU, you are in the minority as far as laws governing hate speech.

[Katashi_itto]

48. 30 years of RW talk radio and Media will continue to drag us down then

If you really believe we have free speech, there is no helping you then.

[GGJohn]

49. And if you believe that we should enact England style free speech laws, or any laws

that restrict free speech, then there's no helping you.

[Katashi_itto]

50. There are restrictions on everything. I can cite lots of examples on say the 2nd amendment

While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.

[GGJohn]

51. Of course there are,

but wanting England style hate speech laws is not an option in the US, you may not like what is said, but they have a right to say it.
A right I will defend to the end.

[Katashi_itto]

52. Good for you. after 30 years of hate talk. I would be fine with a change.

[GGJohn]

53. Ok, now, who would define what hate speech is?

Would you trust the republicans with what is hate speech? How about the RW Supreme Court? For that matter, would you trust any current political party with crafting hate speech laws?
Sure you want to go there?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

73. The actual quote is *falsely* yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Not "wrongly", *falsely*.

If you genuinely believe that the theatre is on fire, you should yell as loudly as you can, and even if it turns out that you were wrong, you should not be punished.

As to Rwanda - yes, there have been some places where too much free speech has arguably (although only arguably - I'm far from convinced that any kind of restrictions on freedom of speech would have prevented the genocide) contributed to tragedy. However, there have been far more where too little has.

[Reter]

88. In the other thread you started, you want to ban guns

Now you want to ban hate speech. You sure you're on the right forums?

[Nye Bevan]

22. As is usually the case, my position on this is the same as that of the ACLU.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedom-expression-aclu-position-paper

Some on the right don't like the ACLU because they oppose flag-burning laws; some on the left don't like the ACLU because they oppose hate speech laws. It's easy to support free speech when it's speech you approve of, not so much when it's speech you dislike.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Read the England laws, why are they so unreasonable as written and enforced? Still no tyranny in

England, their free speech seems excellent.

[GGJohn]

28. Why should we read England's hate speech laws?

They don't apply here. And hopefully, never will.
I like how our 1A works, it's worked just fine for over 200 years.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Nye Bevan]

30. Plenty of evangelical Christian southern District Attorneys would *love* UK-style hate speech laws,

which would enable them to prosecute those accused of denigrating the Christian religion, or of blaspheming Jesus Christ. Fortunately the First Amendment would override any such law.

[Fred Sanders]

32. Set up any strawman/slippery slope law you like, the England laws are well written.

[GGJohn]

35. Who gives a fuck what England's laws are?

Again, this ain't England, we have the right to free speech, and I will oppose any laws you are proposing.

[GGJohn]

33. It always saddens me that people here on a progressive board

want to implement hate speech laws because other countries have them.

[treestar]

41. "seems"

They have an understanding due to a long history. Still, once there is something you can't say, there is something you can be interpreted as saying. Not a good road to go down.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Tolerable, but not excellent.

Free speech is one of the relatively few political things I think America does better than we do.

And freedom of expression in some other parts of Europe is even worse - the French burqa ban, for example, is appalling.

[GGJohn]

75. Maybe tolerable to the British citizens,

but not to Americans.
The concept of hate speech laws are so foreign to us that we just can't imagine it ever happening here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. Who do you include/exclude when you say "we"?

I suspect many Americans would agree with you, but some would not.

I also point out that you do in fact have some similar laws, just not so far-reaching.

[GGJohn]

99. When I say we, I include the majority of Americans.

We don't have anything like Britain's hate speech laws.

[GGJohn]

13. I may not like what they say, but I will defend their right to say it. eom

[JHB]

54. Woulld you like those laws turned against us?

Think of how thin-skinned conservative Christians can be. Think you won't be prosecuted for "anti-Christian hate speech"?

Or anti-male?
Or anti-heterosexual?
Or anti-capitalist?

There are enough problems now with selective enforcement. Do you really want to hand zealots even more invasive tools?

[Fred Sanders]

23. I would like America to join the rest of the civilized world with hate speech laws, so, YES.

[GGJohn]

31. And just who determines what hate speech is?

And what would prevent the party in power from re-interpreting the definition of hate speech is?

[Nye Bevan]

34. You do realize that you could be prosecuted for referring to Catholics as "greedy fucks, fucking sheep"

under the laws you advocate?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4938648

[Fred Sanders]

36. I realize you are not reading the same laws I am, for a reason of course.

[GGJohn]

37. They're not relevant to US law, and should never be.

[Nye Bevan]

38. "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" (UK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

creates an offense of "inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion".

Obviously denigrating Catholics as "greedy fucks, fucking sheep" (as you did) could be prosecuted under such a law. So which law are you reading, if this is not it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. Authoritarians like laws just fine, they simply don't believe they are subject to them

Laws are "for thee, not me"

It's therefore not a bit surprising when a self-appointed 'guardian of Progressivism'
acts in a way they would punish others for...

[Fred Sanders]

61. Fox News may have found itself another editor......

[GGJohn]

65. Nice insult,

NOT.
Those that live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

[Fred Sanders]

60. Reference was to Fox News viewers...so now you have to resort to clear lies in order to make a

manufactured personal attack?
Fox News would be proud.

[GGJohn]

62. What fucking difference does that make?

You still want England style hate speech laws, laws which you could be prosecuted under for the comment you made on that thread.

[Fred Sanders]

63. Now you are going off the cliff headfirst.

America is also not Canada, or Mexico or......

[GGJohn]

64. Really? Explain why you can't be prosecuted under England style hate laws

for that comment?

[Fred Sanders]

66. Explain how I can....you are the one distorting the evidence, have at it.

[GGJohn]

67. You're the one that said I was going off the cliff,

so, do tell me why you think you couldn't be prosecuted under the specific law that Nye Bevan cited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

[Fred Sanders]

68. Explain specifically how you distorted my long ago post you found........ creepy stalking by the way.

[GGJohn]

69. LOL, I'm not the one that found it, Nye Bevan did.

And I notice that you have still failed to answer the question posed to you.

[Fred Sanders]

70. Creepy stalking, no?

[GGJohn]

71. Still refusing to answer the question?

That's ok, I understand that you can't answer it.
Have a good day.

[Nye Bevan]

72. Well... there is enough ambiguity there for you to be prosecuted,

given the text of the OP. You might be able to persuade the jury that you intended your remark to refer to Fox News viewers, or perhaps not. The thing is, in a non-First Amendment environment with hate crime laws, you really need to be much more careful about referring to groups of people as "greedy fuckers, fucking sheep".

[DBoon]

3. The young lady on the billboard deserves an unauthorized mustache

There are some interesting possibilities here

[n2doc]

18. WPR describes all the AM talk radio stations here in my area

Nothing but Savage Wiener and the rest of the Racists on/24/7.

[onecaliberal]

29. Jeezus

What the hell is wrong with people.
Can someone show me where in the bible it says you should hate people with different skin color than yourself.
The stupidity is so fucking tiring.

[logosoco]

47. I don't understand the ignorance with these "hater" people.

Whether you believe in evolution or the bible, it seems pretty clear that we all come from the same place and we are all connected. There is no "your people" and "my people".

We are so far behind, sometimes I feel like I owe my kids and grandsons and apology!

[onecaliberal]

59. Very well stated.

I couldn't agree more.

[madville]

39. I support the Constitution

and that means taking the bad with the good. Of course the Constitution only prohibits the government from oppressing speech so there are other routes, like protesting the sign, contacting the owner of the billboard, boycotting advertisers (which they probably don't have), etc.

[Takket]

42. how the fuck does filth lack that get a broadcasting licence from the FCC?

[GGJohn]

43. It's called the 1st Amendment.

As long as there not violating the law, they have a right to spout their hatred.

[Nye Bevan]

44. Is it actually an over-the-air radio station, or just a website? (nt)

[GGJohn]

45. Looks like a website with streaming broadcasts. eom

[Takket]

46. good question, i don't know. anyone want to go to the website to find out? LOL

[Initech]

56. FCC doesn't regulate internet stations.

[freshwest]

85. True.

[Dont call me Shirley]

55. I've been to Harrison.

Won't be going back, not even for the Cavender's.

[FiveGoodMen]

76. If you love YOUR people and NOT other people based on what color they are or where they're from

THEN IT MOST GODDAMNED DEFINITELY IS RACISM.

I wish death -- horrible, slow agonizing death, starting very soon -- upon WhitePrideRadio and all who side with it.

[GGJohn]

78. I don't side with the message,

but I do side with the right to say it, and my right to oppose their message.

[workinclasszero]

77. Fucking rascists

Who are "my people" exactly you night riding, cross burning terrorist POS?

All of God's children are my people, well except 1%ers anyway. Color of skin doesn't have a damn thing to do with it!

These aholes are tools of the 1% to keep working folks divided and weak. Just like Fox "news"...white pride TV! LOL!

[MrMickeysMom]

79. Sure seems like a nice way to instigate a race war...

This is a little better than yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater.

This seriously has to be challenged and I hope it will. Oh, and fuck every advertiser supporting this tripe.

[joeybee12]

80. They play one song...You Light Up My Life...

That's the whitest song I know...and Debby's probably as big a crackpot as her father.

[Termin]

81. Take that stupid sign down...

If you have to say "It's not racist" it probably is. Prime example right here.

[GGJohn]

82. Who should take it down?

The authorities?

[valerief]

83. What a scary fuckin' place. nt

[1step]

87. Uhh, which "white" are we talking about?

My Irish one? A Polish one? A Jewish one? A Scandinavian one?

[jdenver_2624]

89. The morons who created that billboard are truly the lowest of the low.

I'm willing to bet the fools who put it up are still living in their parents' basement, busy writing obscenities on the internet. Can't wait until someone defaces it.

[Behind the Aegis]

95. 1A rules.

It also let's one know who the blatant racists are, much easier than the latent ones.

[WhiteAndNerdy]

98. That's what I was going to say.

I want these creeps to continue to air their views in public where others can see them for what they are. Hate speech laws would not change their minds . . . it would just drive their speech underground and make it harder to identify them.