{"id":167,"date":"2002-12-12T13:14:50","date_gmt":"2002-12-12T20:14:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stefangeens.com\/?p=167"},"modified":"2002-12-12T13:14:50","modified_gmt":"2002-12-12T20:14:50","slug":"the-kkk-and-the-nazis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/2002\/12\/the-kkk-and-the-nazis\/","title":{"rendered":"The KKK and the Nazis"},"content":{"rendered":"

It was an interesting day for the law in the US. The Supreme Court hearing of a challenge to a Virginia law<\/a> banning cross burning in public view made for some riveting exchanges.<\/p>\n

A similar law\u2014which banned the display of any symbols that were known to cause anger or resentment\u2014was struck down in 1992 because it was found to violate freedom of speech guarantees.<\/p>\n

But this law is aimed directly at public cross-burning rituals, because it redefines them not as protected hate speech, but as actual threatening conduct, much like somebody with a criminal past brandishing a loaded gun. Indeed, if I were black, based on past history I imagine I would feel very threatened were I to venture near a cross-burning ritual, so it is an eminently reasonable ground for banning the practice, and the Supreme Court seems to agree (we’ll see).<\/p>\n

But there are other examples one could find of such practices. A public rally of Nazi types doing the Hitler salute? Jews (and gays and gypsies) might feel threatened by such a display of hate too.<\/p>\n

Germany bans Nazi rallies. Why not ban them in the US? White supremacists steeped in Nazi nostalgia preparing for the revolution somewhere in Oregon seem to have more sense than the KKK, and have realized that Nazi rallies are terrible PR. As far as I know, there are no public Nazi rallies in the US. Which is probably why they haven’t been banned specifically. But if and when they happen, they should be.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[Thu, Dec 12 2002 – 12:27] Matthew<\/b> (www<\/a>) (email<\/a>) you’r not right on this, i’m afriad. the justices quoted in the times imply that cross-burning is not protected speech because it can only mean one thing–a call for violence against blacks–and there’s no protection under the first amendment for inciting violence against others. your nazi rally might be offensive and upsetting to a whole host of people, but it’s also a legitimate display of a political ideology, whether you like it or not. hard to make the case that being a nazi is or was ONLY about killing jews. ipso facto, protected speech. <\/p>\n

[Thu, Dec 12 2002 – 15:44] Matthew<\/b> (www<\/a>) (email<\/a>) nice piece in slate<\/a> on this, which defines the nub of the problem thus:<\/p>\n

And what today’s argument comes down to is this: Does the act of burning a cross so clearly communicate both a message and a clear threat of violence that it can be constitutionally suppressed, even if it carries an explicit political meaning?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[Thu, Dec 12 2002 – 15:53] Matthew<\/b> (www<\/a>) (email<\/a>) flag burning is a good counterpoint. the supreme court has allowed flag burning, even though a good majority of the justices would condemn the act. that’s because burning flags is a conscious act of protest against government. banning the practice would silence that expression. it’s also key that flag burning doesn’t per sse threaten any individuals, unless you think washington lobbyists need some kind of constitutional protection. <\/p>\n

[Thu, Dec 12 2002 – 15:56] Matthew<\/b> (www<\/a>) (email<\/a>) sorry to go on, but i love this stuff. the slate piece also has this nugget:<\/p>\n

The facts read like outtakes from A Charlie Brown Redneck Christmas. In one of the two cases, 18-year-old Virginia Beach resident Richard Elliott decided to “get back” at the interracial couple next door for (sigh) complaining about gunshots coming from his backyard. With the help of Elliott’s friend (that would be the one with the Confederate flag sticker on his truck) (sigh), he tried to burn a cross on the neighbors’ lawn. Somehow the guys were too dumb to ignite wood with lighter fluid. (Leaving on the property an intact cross that would still scare the hell out of a neighboring vampire.) <\/p>\n

[Fri, Dec 13 2002 – 13:22] Charles Kenny<\/b> (email<\/a>) Matthew, you are being greedy. Four responses before anyone else is allowed to say anything intelligent and insghtful about this vital issue. And now it will be five responses. <\/p>\n

[Sat, Dec 14 2002 – 14:55] Stefan Geens<\/b> (email<\/a>) Matthew, it seems to me that in absolute terms the Nazis have been much more effective in realizing the implications of their ideology than white spuremacists. While the Nazis called for the extermination of the Jewish race (and managed to off some 6 million), the KKK, arguably, calls “merely” for the subjugation of blacks, using lynching and crossburning as means of control (and effectively so in the past).<\/p>\n

It is the past use of cross-burning as an actual threat to blacks that qualifies it for prohibition today. See hooded men light a cross today and if you are black you run like hell. See a group of men with crewcuts doing the Nazi salute at you and you are wearing a yarmulke you run like hell. Explain the difference to me. <\/p>\n

[Sat, Dec 14 2002 – 17:41] Matthew<\/b> (email<\/a>) as i understand it, it’s because nazis stand for a range of things (strong central government, invading poland) the expression of which is protected. running into a nazi rally doesn’t necessarily mean that harm will come to you. and again, the key is whether by banning the act, you also subjugate the speech. banning otherwise legitimate albeit offensive marches robs people of political expression.<\/p>\n

burning crosses, on the other hand, have over time come to only mean one thing, and it’s good bet that harm will likely, automatically, come to you.<\/p>\n

now, that doesn’t mean that our nazis can rally around times square shouting “kill jews.” inciting a crime isn’t protected. there are also probably some squishy “hate-speech” laws, too. but because killing jews is not innate to being a nazi, you’re just going to have to put up with the rest of the content. <\/p>\n

[Sat, Dec 14 2002 – 18:36] Stefan<\/b> (email<\/a>) It seems to me that when the KKK burns a cross, perhaps in the anticipation of a racial killing, they seem to be saying some things pretty loud and clear. They are saying they see blacks as less than human, and that blacks are not worthy of equal protection under the law. But the full content of KKK ideology revolves around religious justifications for such bigotry, social Darwinism, an appeal to historical myths, etc… to an extent very similar to Nazi mythiology and religious symbolism.<\/p>\n

Cross burning is a specific instance of an expression of these beliefs, one closely associated with violence against blacks. The kind of hatred expressed by white supremacists and Nazis is already similar (the targets have a lot of overlap; it is a matter of differing priorities). What keeps you from drawing similar connections between the ritualization of violence against their respective targets? They both obviously require a component of ideology to justify their actions. In neither case should this be enough to qualify the actions as protected speech.<\/p>\n

It seems clearcut to me. <\/p>\n

[Sun, Dec 15 2002 – 12:22] Matthew<\/b> (email<\/a>) what is it here you’re not getting?<\/p>\n

KKK and Nazi marches come under a very broad category of political speech, no different from the Dem and GOP conventions. At neither can anyone suggest anyone kill anyone and expect first amendment protection. most everything else is allowable.<\/p>\n

cross-burning, as the supremes seem to be leaning, is akin to waving a loaded gun in someone’e face and saying “you’re next.” it’s a specific act which inherently carries a threat.<\/p>\n

to make the connection with cross-burning, you have to argue that it is commonly understood that marching nazis always end up killing jews and therefore the fact of marching is bound up with the fact of killing and isn’t therefore a protected act. i don’t think you can make that case.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It was an interesting day for the law in the US. The Supreme Court hearing of a challenge to a Virginia law banning cross burning in public view made for some riveting exchanges. A similar law\u2014which banned the display of … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics-economics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7eNhC-2H","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stefangeens.com\/2001-2013\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}